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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE62BB10 for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:37:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 32416246F9 for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:36:35 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 327DE246EB for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:36:33 +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 F3AE541B8E for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 08:36:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 08:36:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20220429100030.809902-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220429100030.809902-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.747 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.943 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 - URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] BTRFSPlugin: reuse DirPlugin update/get_volume_attribute 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: Mon, 02 May 2022 06:37:05 -0000 Am 4/29/22 um 12:00 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > this allows setting notes+protected for backups on btrfs > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > index be613f4..dd5f139 100644 > --- a/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > +++ b/PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm > @@ -138,9 +138,25 @@ sub status { > return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::status($class, $storeid, $scfg, $cache); > } > > -# TODO: sub get_volume_attribute {} > +# FIXME remove on the next APIAGE reset. > +# Deprecated, use get_volume_attribute instead. > +sub get_volume_notes { > + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::get_volume_notes(@_); > +} > + > +# FIXME remove on the next APIAGE reset. > +# Deprecated, use update_volume_attribute instead. > +sub update_volume_notes { > + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_notes( @_); > +} makes no sense to add these? they are deprecated and unused anyway > > -# TODO: sub update_volume_attribute {} > +sub get_volume_attribute { > + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::get_volume_attribute(@_); > +} > + > +sub update_volume_attribute { > + return PVE::Storage::DirPlugin::update_volume_attribute(@_); > +} This is so trivial that I'm wondering if Wolfgang had a reason to not do it for the original get_volume_notes that was there long before the BTRFS plugin got added.. > > # croak would not include the caller from within this module > sub __error {