From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DEDF1FF176 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:48:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 963E91D878; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:48:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <586b19c3-199e-4625-b771-b043bf1ccbac@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:47:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Fiona Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20250124100811.32895-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250124100811.32895-4-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <2effc6f4-7624-4f78-9480-b94df117fa66@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <2effc6f4-7624-4f78-9480-b94df117fa66@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.044 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 3/3] fix #6007: template backup: use minimized configuration for handling the full vm start 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 24.01.25 um 11:23 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >> @@ -4017,7 +4018,7 @@ sub config_to_command { >> push @$cmd, @$aa; >> } >> >> - return wantarray ? ($cmd, $vollist, $spice_port, $pci_devices) : $cmd; >> + return wantarray ? ($cmd, $vollist, $spice_port, $pci_devices, $conf) : $cmd; >> } >> > > Hmm, thinking about it again, to reduce regression potential, we could > also just return the temporary config if it was actually required and > have the caller only assign it when really present. Although I suppose it doesn't really give us anything after all. I was worried a bit about things like potential auto-vivification, but since we already use the original $conf hash ref throughout the function (except in the template case), such things would already affect the caller. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel