From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 6F54F7354B for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:20:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 649FD19ADB for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:20:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 CA0BE19ACE for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:20:41 +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 941C545ADF for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:20:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:20:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Aaron Lauterer , Fabian Ebner References: <20210402101923.13050-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20210402101923.13050-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <3a122331-1f39-5e52-bcff-8ed28f763a2c@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <3a122331-1f39-5e52-bcff-8ed28f763a2c@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.041 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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. [plugin.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v6 storage 1/1] add disk reassign feature X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:20:42 -0000 On 15.04.21 13:53, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > Just adding the functionality on the top level Plugin.pm could have some > potential ugly side effects for 3rd party plugins that do not yet handle that > call themselves. So to be on the safe side, by default we rather fail right > there (was discussed a versions ago). I may have forgotten the old discussion, but I do not think that this is a problem. External plugins can detect if they require it and implement it, and actually, we could just check the ABI version a plugin provides on calling the base method and error out if it's less than the one where we introduced this method. > IMHO it would be nice though to change the structure of the storage plugins a > bit. E.g. instead of assuming dir/file storages for Plugin.pm, having a basic > abstraction specifically for any directory/file based storage which handles > all the common tasks and further down the hierarchy the specific > implementations regarding mounting and such. But that would mean a hard break > of the current approach, especially for 3rd party plugins. That sounds actually quite like what we already have, rather the base plugin module should just provide the set of methods with a `die "implement me"`, and probably only that, i.e., be a plain abstract interface. But that's quite some change involved and requires a ABI version break as all plugins would need to adapt to that one, and the benefit is meh, at least for our internal ones; and after all those are the ones we actually support.