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 5D9B31FF13E for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2026 14:09:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 465912538; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 14:09:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5a6b230c-0de8-4e99-959d-55c4649f0d85@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 14:09:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH container v2 3/4] setup: add no-op detect_architecture for unmanaged CTs To: Daniel Kral , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260206124513.310674-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260206124513.310674-4-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260206124513.310674-4-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770383278914 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.017 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 Message-ID-Hash: INY5N4MFZTHSIZZDBLNSXDQFKWABIAPY X-Message-ID-Hash: INY5N4MFZTHSIZZDBLNSXDQFKWABIAPY X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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: Am 06.02.26 um 1:44 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: > This plugin method is only called in PVE::LXC::Setup::new() and is > wrapped in an eval block, so it won't fail to create the container, but > report an error that the plugin method is not implemented for unmanaged > containers. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral > --- > changes from v1: > - none > > src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Unmanaged.pm | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Unmanaged.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Unmanaged.pm > index aa26c1c..b51be55 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Unmanaged.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/Unmanaged.pm > @@ -65,6 +65,11 @@ sub ssh_host_key_types_to_generate { > return; > } > > +sub detect_architecture { > + my ($self) = @_; > + return; Thinking through it again, should we rather just die here instead of returning undef? It seems to me that the contract for the method is currently "either return the detected architecture or die". Then patch 4/4 would not be needed. Your new implementation adds a "or return undef" to the contract making it more complicated. > +} > + > # hooks > > sub pre_start_hook {