From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 98813708A6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A3D01E059
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 15B181E04E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DE08843B18
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:46:52 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <ee6ff5f9-b8a7-a145-c839-ab8c548caeed@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:46:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com
References: <20220321093305.3585964-1-d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220321093305.3585964-1-d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.913 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
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.732 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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 v3 container] fix: #3927: Error codes when
 starting/stopping
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:46:53 -0000

Am 21.03.22 um 10:33 schrieb Daniel Tschlatscher:
>  containers Stopping and starting a container that is already in the desired
>  state will not return an error value on the CLI anymore. The same as VMs do,
>  when they are stopped but not running.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>

This also applies to the second patch: I'd feel more comfortable keeping
the error exit codes for the start commands. There might be users
already relying upon this behavior. If start succeeds, we know we have a
freshly started instance. We actually rely on it a bit ourselves, for
migration to detect a bogus instance already running on the target node.

For the stop command, it's not as relevant IMHO, and I'm fine with
either way, but we might want to wait until the next major release as it
can be seen as a breaking API change too.