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 A1C9662A77 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:59:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 922C41EA6F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:59:04 +0100 (CET) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 17D871EA62 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:59:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D5B32432D6 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:59:03 +0100 (CET) To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20210126114530.8753-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <074692d5-dbac-2577-18b4-6df39466a7f4@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <ca5ba6bd-23b8-cc62-740f-1d808f26e2e8@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:58:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <074692d5-dbac-2577-18b4-6df39466a7f4@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] partially-applied: [PATCH-SERIES] partially fix #2285: extend Diskmanage to also list partitions 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, 08 Feb 2021 07:59:04 -0000 Am 06.02.21 um 14:13 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 26.01.21 12:45, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> and fix some other little things along the way (see patches #1, #4, #9). >> >> Mostly re-uses existing functionality, but refactors it, so it can be re-used >> for partitions as well. New is the detection of filesystems via lsblk and the >> detection of more PVE-relevant partuuids. >> >> In the UI, the current list is replaced by a treepanel including the partitions. >> >> This series does not yet make it possible to select partitons for storage >> creation for certain types, which is one of the parts of bug #2285. I felt >> like this series was getting rather big already and that there was more >> discussion to be had about that and it can always be done as a follow-up series. >> The usage of a partition currently always defaults to 'partition'. A good >> heuristic to find out when a partition is unused would be needed and/or good >> ways to warn the user and ask if they're sure they have the correct partition. >> This also ties in to the proposed feature of allowing users to wipe disks under >> certain conditions. >> > > > Applied storage and manager patches, thanks! > > For widget toolkit I'm wondering about backward compatibility towards older > API daemons still running and other products - you mentioned PBS so I guess > you tested it? > No, sorry, I missed this. Because of the new parameter in the API call it's not backwards compatible. I'll send a v2 for those patches and make sure it's backwards compatible. > Also, the Type column for partitions shouldn't be "unknown" but rather > "partition", or even "GPT Partition"/"MBR Partition" or the like. > And I'll also add a patch for this.