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 DE4F070F59
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:40:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CE2D529B22
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:40:22 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:40:22 +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 3302B42BF2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:40:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <e53cf62c-55fc-6b8e-cc78-3ad19cdee77e@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:40:21 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Stefan Hrdlicka <s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
References: <20220720144949.1568323-1-s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220720144949.1568323-1-s.hrdlicka@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
 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           -0.001 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-container 0/3] fix #3711: delete LXC
 container with missing storage
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, 25 Jul 2022 10:40:52 -0000

Am 20.07.22 um 16:49 schrieb Stefan Hrdlicka:
> The patch adds a new option 'force-remove-storage' that stops pct
> destory from dying if the storage is not available. This also adds a
> menu option for the delete dialog of containers.
> 

VMs are also affected, so we probably want the new option there too.
Although for VMs, it is possible to work around the issue by detaching
all non-existing disks first.

So slightly related: when detaching a disk and the owner of the volume
is different (it also happens when the storage/disk does not exist
anymore), we drop the disk for VMs, but we register it as unused for
containers. Should we make that consistent?