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