From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 63469A2870
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:21:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4436929228
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:21:01 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:21:00 +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 859C046846
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:21:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b651b505-00fc-b634-9db1-542108e43d24@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:20:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20230619092937.604628-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
 <20230619092937.604628-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230619092937.604628-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.002 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A            -0.09 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v5 qemu-server 1/10] qemuserver:
 foreach_volid: include pending volumes
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, 19 Jun 2023 12:21:31 -0000

Am 19.06.23 um 11:29 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
>  
> @@ -4876,11 +4876,13 @@ sub foreach_volid {
>  	$volhash->{$volid}->{shared} = 1 if $drive->{shared};
>  
>  	$volhash->{$volid}->{referenced_in_config} //= 0;
> -	$volhash->{$volid}->{referenced_in_config} = 1 if !defined($snapname);
> +	$volhash->{$volid}->{referenced_in_config} = 1 if !defined($snapname) && !defined($pending);

Nit: I would've made $pending behave like a boolean, i.e. check for
$pending rather than defined($pending). $snapname is a string, so there
one wouldn't accidentally pass in an explicit 0.

>  
>  	$volhash->{$volid}->{referenced_in_snapshot}->{$snapname} = 1
>  	    if defined($snapname);
>  
> +	$volhash->{$volid}->{referenced_in_pending} = 1 if defined($pending);
> +

Same.