From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A7AC1FF15E for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:35:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 31A0416AC4; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:36:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <b8a2a94c-25b6-47e6-bfcf-58e4ee35d1fb@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:35:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250612140253.106555-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250612140253.106555-16-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <409e12ad0b53d1b51c30717e6b9df3d370112df4.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> <mailman.422.1750140296.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <mailman.422.1750140296.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.031 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 15/22] vm start/commandline: activate volumes before config_to_command() 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 17.06.25 um 08:04 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel: >>> With '-blockdev', it is necessary to activate the volumes to >>> generate >>> the command line, because it can be necessary to check whether the >>> volume is a block device or a regular file. > >>> I was thinking about that, but do we have storage with >>> activate_volume >>> need to be done for a regular file ? > >>> for lvm plugin for example, we could return always >>> driver=>host_device. > >>> activate_volume is always done in specific plugin, so the plugin >>> should >>> be able to tell if it's a block or file storage > >>> only custom path passthrough in vm configuration need to be checked >>> if >>> it's a file or device, but we don't have activate_volume anyway > > > But for external snapshot, we need to check the backing file chain > inside lvm qcow2 volumes, so maybe it's still needed.... > > we could use the vm config, but I'm not sure that we can trust it > safely, in case of snapshot error, or if an external backup tool like > veeam do snapshot, > and if we add snapshot replication like zfs where snapshots are not in > th vm config Discussed this yesterday with Fabian off-list a bit more, and we decided to go with the activate_volumes approach. It's nearly there already, just need to not deactivate after showcmd. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel