From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EB5974342
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:19:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 223381A460
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:19:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id AD2671A452
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:19:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7DB3C40C0C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:19:07 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <a839c212-e69f-c465-b3e5-4b1e9f92816b@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:18:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/90.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20210618105938.57107-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20210618105938.57107-5-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210618105938.57107-5-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.726 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH qemu-server 1/2] prefer
 storage_check_enabled over storage_check_node
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 09:19:38 -0000

On 18.06.21 12:59, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> storage_check_enabled simply checks for the 'disable' option and then calls
> storage_check_node.
> 
> While not strictly necessary for a second call where only the storage differs,
> e.g. in case of clone, it is more future-proof: if support for a target storage
> is added at some point, it might be easy to miss adapting the call.
> 
> For the migration checks, the situation is improved by now always catching
> disabled (target) storages.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/API2/Qemu.pm   |  4 ++--
>  PVE/QemuMigrate.pm | 10 +++++-----
>  PVE/QemuServer.pm  |  4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!