From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> 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 4020C929CF for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:57:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2174A1A4BA for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:56:35 +0100 (CET) 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 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:56:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CC74F44CEE for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:56:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5cbd0ad2-f9fb-c9c9-f381-2f21e98f6442@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 15:56:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/108.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> References: <20221221165110.303770-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20221221165110.303770-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.030 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemu.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH qemu-server v3] rollback: Only create start task with --start if VM is not running X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:57:05 -0000 Am 21/12/2022 um 17:51 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: > When rolling back to the snapshot of a VM that includes RAM, the VM > gets started by the rollback task anyway, so no additional start task > is needed. Previously, when rolling back with the start parameter and > the VM snapshot included RAM, a start task was created. That task > failed because the VM had already been started by the rollback task. > > Additionally documented this behaviour in the description of the start > parameter > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com> > --- > Changes v2 -> v3: > Use vm_running_locally() instead of check_running() > Improved description > > Changes v1 -> v2: > Do not parse config for checking type of snapshot but rather directly check > whether VM is running or not via check_running() > > PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > applied, thanks!