From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FE291FF143 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 16:01:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1480F21E7B; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 16:01:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <667237ea-ab99-4024-be77-8cbe6d65bc94@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 16:00:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Daniel Kral References: <20251215155334.476984-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20251215155334.476984-11-d.kral@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20251215155334.476984-11-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1768834789675 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.015 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 1/1] api: migration preconditions: add node affinity as blocking cause 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 15.12.25 um 4:54 PM schrieb Daniel Kral: > Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral > --- > Needs a version bump for pve-ha-manager. > Such a bump is only required in the sense that the enum variant cannot actually happen before new ha-manager is installed. The patch here could be applied without such a bump, upgraded and nothing would break. But technically, it's a breaking change in the other direction. New HA manager might cause old qemu-server to return something that was not declared in the return schema. I guess it won't be a huge issue in practice though. API clients already need to be prepared for new variants being returned and the issue would only manifest if the API client checks the correctness of the result against the installed, old qemu-server API schema. > src/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm b/src/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm > index 190878de..5c4f6eb3 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm > @@ -5196,7 +5196,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ > type => 'string', > description => "The reason why the HA" > . " resource is blocking the migration.", > - enum => ['resource-affinity'], > + enum => ['node-affinity', 'resource-affinity'], > }, > }, > }, _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel