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 EC25B94462
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:03:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C6EA31C157
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:02:48 +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>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:02:48 +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 17D5B443CE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:02:48 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1293cc50-ffea-1832-52b0-28f1a0b5a5b6@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:02:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/109.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Stefan Hanreich <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
References: <20230105145156.582258-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230105145156.582258-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.038 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. [qemuserver.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH qemu-server v2] fix #4358: destroy_vm:
 Ignore 'suspended' lock when destroying VM
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: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:03:19 -0000

Am 05/01/2023 um 15:51 schrieb Stefan Hanreich:
> Since we can now differentiate between 'suspended' and 'suspending',
> it is possible to ignore the 'suspended' lock when destroying a VM.
> It shouldn't matter whether the VM is locked because of hibernation
> when you want to remove it. Therefore we can safely ignore the lock.
> ---
> 
> Changes v1 -> v2:
> * Improved commit message
> 
> After thinking about it for awhile, I'm not sure whether showing a
> hint in the UI, when removing a hibernated VM, is that useful. Not sure
> why one would have a reason to reconsider removal suddenly in that
> case. Maybe someone else has some input/ideas on this?

yeah, as said, not a must.

> 
>  PVE/QemuServer.pm | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!