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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C945BBE1 for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:21:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2323C24CFA for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:48 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 56F7A24CF0 for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:47 +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 05F6B4265B; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 09:20:46 +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-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220429100030.809902-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <8f52f28f-e96c-d8df-e355-92564ec66f29@proxmox.com> <4b9aa1ea-df4a-a2cd-8147-4cb778ed8df7@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <4b9aa1ea-df4a-a2cd-8147-4cb778ed8df7@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.844 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 07:21:18 -0000 On 5/2/22 09:04, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 5/2/22 um 08:48 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> On 5/2/22 08:36, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> 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 >> >> no actually, the DirPlugin implementation calls >> $class->get_volume_notes for now, so it would try to call the >> BtrfsPlugin version of those which inherits from Plugin which dies in those... >> (CephFs/CIFS/NFS actually do the same as i did here) > > such thing would be good things to include in the commit message ;-) > > Anyhow, as removal of that method is planned anyhow the real fix would be to move > the implementation in update_volume_notes away from it, be it through inlining the > small logic or moving it to a new, private, helper. > >> >> i guess we could do (untested) >> --8<-- >> shift @_; # discard class >> PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->update_volume_notes(@_); >> -->8-- > > most often it's way nicer to avoid the (@_) calls in general and do an explicit > > my ($class, $...) = @_; > return foo($class, $...) # or whatever > > anyway, allows to see the actual "signature" and makes things more explicit. > > >> >> not sure if thats a good idea though >> >> we could also factor out the get/update_volume_notes impl in DirPlugin >> and call it from both paths? then we'd not have to implement >> the _notes subs here >> >>> >>>>   -# 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.. >> >> i mean it's possible, but idk how else you'd implement it? notes & protected >> are only files where we read/write the content or test the existance? >> >> we could probably do something btrfs specific, but is it worth that? > > > as hinted, Wolfgang will be the one to answer the reason, even if it was just "forgot". > And yeah, it's IMO worth it to actually understand first why some seemingly trivial feature > was skipped before just doing something "blindly", seemingly obvious or not. makes sense, i just noticed because on content listing, the notes will already show up if set this way because in the 'get_subdir_files' of Storage.pm we directly read the notes file if it exists