From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ACFA297EDA for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:19:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 86D5F1910F for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:19:20 +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 ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:19:19 +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 91043427D9 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:19:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4d818511-f995-4834-a5eb-ac012d93a987@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:19:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Fiona Ebner , Friedrich Weber , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240306104703.115366-1-h.duerr@proxmox.com> <1f999e2b-7ada-4978-9f40-27481a81bd3b@proxmox.com> <5a2c2cae-1974-4f45-8a58-30ff7792a8f7@proxmox.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hannes_D=C3=BCrr?= In-Reply-To: <5a2c2cae-1974-4f45-8a58-30ff7792a8f7@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed 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% 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 1/1] fix 1734: clone VM: if deactivation fails demote error to warning 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:19:50 -0000 On 3/6/24 15:04, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Yes, but the question is what is worse: Needing to re-do the clone or > having the VM config on the wrong node? > >> To avoid that, I'd lean towards keeping the behavior of failing the task >> if deactivating $newvollist fails. After all, at least in case of LVM >> not being able to deactivate because the device is in use, we just >> created $newvollist so hopefully nobody else should be accessing it. > Fine by me. Yes, it's unlikely to fail. And we can still adapt later if > users ever complain about it. I've sent a v2 https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-March/062115.html Also, i agree with friedrich, but yes, it should be very unlikely to fail.