From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.weber@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 AABEC92361
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  5 Apr 2024 15:16:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8C06413E5B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  5 Apr 2024 15:16:02 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  5 Apr 2024 15:16:02 +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 BED0346591
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  5 Apr 2024 15:16:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <0ad5b9a4-1205-4ae2-b106-0da73f24235c@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:16:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
References: <20240130171057.438025-1-f.weber@proxmox.com>
 <20240130171057.438025-3-f.weber@proxmox.com>
 <aa5b92ea-2f6a-4ee4-8a2e-7a13da990739@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <aa5b92ea-2f6a-4ee4-8a2e-7a13da990739@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.071 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] applied: [PATCH container v2 2/6] api: status: move
 config locking from API handler into worker
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, 05 Apr 2024 13:16:02 -0000

On 04/04/2024 17:26, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Oh, and it might be worth mentioning explicitly in the next release notes,
> as it's a change in behavior that could theoretically throw up some
> tooling that depends on the $action not failing due to locking if the
> adapted endpoints returned – albeit IMO a bit silly to assume that (as the
> actions can fail in other ways inside the worker anyway).

True, I've made a note to mention this in the release notes.