[pve-devel] [PATCH storage] BTRFSPlugin: reuse DirPlugin update/get_volume_attribute

[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 <d.csapak at proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>   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)

i guess we could do (untested)
--8<--
shift @_; # discard class
PVE::Storage::DirPlugin->update_volume_notes(@_);
-->8--

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?

> 
>>   
>>   # croak would not include the caller from within this module
>>   sub __error {
>