From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33AF81FF0E4 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:24:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5A641213EA; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:24:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Daniel Kral Subject: applied: [PATCH-SERIES ha-manager v2 0/2] fix #6084: allow dropping maintenance state with active HA resources Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 17:24:25 +0200 Message-ID: <178404266398.1262328.7083031298868390514.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260709085632.62493-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> References: <20260709085632.62493-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1784042655322 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.345 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: TCFME4PNESYJE3HMO3YKKFEGHADMDWBI X-Message-ID-Hash: TCFME4PNESYJE3HMO3YKKFEGHADMDWBI X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:56:29 +0200, Daniel Kral wrote: > changes v1 -> v2: > - add extra context to comment in condition (as suggested by @Michael) > - add R-b + T-b from Michael > > As reported in BZ #6804 [0], if a node held active HA resources, that > could not be moved to any other node, while a node maintenance request > has been placed and dropped again, the node's LRM would stay in > maintenance state even though the maintenance mode was lifted. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/2] test: add maintenance test case with stuck HA resource commit: f107bc91196e03a6125ef4a52c0aa255d05bd0c3 [2/2] fix #6084: lrm: allow dropping maintenance with active HA resources commit: 858625dfce33ecf1a5ddcbca576fcb1ac90fbe9b