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 B4CE673F4A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  8 Jul 2021 09:26:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ABEA013100
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  8 Jul 2021 09:26:28 +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 EBFE1130F2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  8 Jul 2021 09:26:27 +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 BF91240EF9
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  8 Jul 2021 09:26:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <ad4e64ef-9789-3d4c-2821-e1c4ca63c309@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:26:08 +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: <20210707102250.5478-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210707102250.5478-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.493 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
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [pve6to7.pm, proxmox.com]
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH manager 1/2] pve6to7: storage content:
 skip scanning storage if shared
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: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 07:26:28 -0000

On 07.07.21 12:22, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> Shared storages are not scanned for migration either, so they cannot
> be problematic in this context. This could lead to false positives
> where it actually is completely unproblematic:
> 
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-ve-7-0-released.92007/post-401165
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/CLI/pve6to7.pm | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
>

forgot to reply yesterday, but already applied both patches as IMO the confusion
causing element was way higher than any actual real risk for those unreferenced
volumes. If it seems it would have helped actually then I'd vouch for doing it
on "--full" only and to explicitly note when the warning is not an issue.