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 990941FF15C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:55:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DCC92D4A7; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:55:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <da714d0b-c93b-4734-b91a-b6783bf1af49@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:54:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> References: <20250211160825.254167-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20250211160825.254167-3-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250211160825.254167-3-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.046 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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. [storage.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-storage v2 2/5] introduce helpers for content type assertions of storages and 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> 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 11.02.25 um 17:07 schrieb Daniel Kral: > Add subroutines for asserting the content types of storages and volumes > to reduce code duplication, e.g. when implementing preconditions in an > API handler before calling vdisk_alloc. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> > --- > changes since v1: > - moved from qemu-server to pve-storage > - add missing $node parameter to helpers > - adapt and fix wrong docs (copy paste error) > - remove `alloc_volume_disk` and `check_{volume,storage}_alloc` > > src/PVE/Storage.pm | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage.pm b/src/PVE/Storage.pm > index 3b4f041..ca69cd6 100755 > --- a/src/PVE/Storage.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/Storage.pm > @@ -529,6 +529,46 @@ sub parse_volume_id { > return PVE::Storage::Plugin::parse_volume_id($volid, $noerr); > } > > +=head3 assert_content_type_supported($cfg, $storeid, $content_type [, $node]) > + > +Asserts whether the storage with the identifier C<$storeid>, which is defined in C<$cfg>, supports > +the content type C<$content_type>. > + > +If C<$node> is set, the assertion is made for the specified C<$node>, else for the current node. > + > +If the check fails, the subroutine will C<die> with an error message for either the storage being > +unavailable or the storage not supporting the specified content type. > + I'd rather group the functions with their respective doc. I.e. doc+function,doc+function instead of doc+doc,function+function. > +=head3 assert_volume_type_supported($cfg, $volid [, $node]) > + > +Asserts whether the volume with the identifier C<$volid>, which is on a storage defined in C<$cfg>, > +supports the volume's content type determined by L<parse_volname>. > + > +If C<$node> is set, the assertion is made for the specified C<$node>, else for the current node. > + > +If the check fails, the subroutine will C<die> with an error message for either the storage being > +unavailable or the storage not supporting the volume's content type. > + > +=cut > + > +sub assert_content_type_supported : prototype($$$;$) { > + my ($cfg, $storeid, $content_type, $node) = @_; > + > + my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid, $node); The storage_config() function does not have a $node parameter, but a $noerr parameter. I guess you want to use storage_check_enabled() since the documentation talks about "storage being unavailable"? > + > + die "storage '$storeid' does not support content type '$content_type'\n" > + if !$scfg->{content}->{$content_type}; > +} > + > +sub assert_volume_type_supported : prototype($$;$) { > + my ($cfg, $volid, $node) = @_; > + > + my ($storeid) = parse_volume_id($volid); > + my ($vtype) = parse_volname($cfg, $volid); > + > + assert_content_type_supported($cfg, $storeid, $vtype, $node); > +} > + > # test if we have read access to volid > sub check_volume_access { > my ($rpcenv, $user, $cfg, $vmid, $volid, $type) = @_; _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel