From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514641FF195 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:23:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 57AB31B762; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:23:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <63bfad6f-daa8-45ed-ae90-626dfe2480d2@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:23:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20250213131716.3062383-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20250213131716.3062383-16-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <0a1e25c0-c80a-4f42-a1b5-8d1420157d3c@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <0a1e25c0-c80a-4f42-a1b5-8d1420157d3c@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.041 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 manager v6 2/5] bulk migrate: improve precondition checks 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 07.03.25 um 14:19 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 13.02.25 um 14:17 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> this now takes into account the 'not_allowed_nodes' hash we get from the >> api call. With that, we can now limit the 'local_resources' check for >> online vms only, as for offline guests, the 'unavailable-resources' hash >> already includes mapped devices that don't exist on the target node. >> >> This now also includes unavailable storages on target nodes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> >> --- >> changes in v6: >> * added missing colon in log output >> PVE/API2/Nodes.pm | 14 +++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm b/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm >> index 9cdf19db..f504e1b1 100644 >> --- a/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm >> +++ b/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm >> @@ -2331,11 +2331,23 @@ my $create_migrate_worker = sub { >> $invalidConditions .= join(', ', map { $_->{volid} } @{$preconditions->{local_disks}}); >> } >> >> - if (@{$preconditions->{local_resources}}) { >> + if ($online && scalar($preconditions->{local_resources}->@*)) { > > Hmm, what about non-usb/pci local devices that are not covered by the > 'unavailable-resources' below? I.e. ivshmem/serial/parallel. You break > the check for offline migration against those. And actually also the not-mapped USB/PCI devices or? _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel