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 [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 347691FF185
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:31:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DBC33C983;
Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:31:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <68a434eb-89b5-4b69-b76b-74131a65cd0d@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:31:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250618130209.90649-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20250618130209.90649-33-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<mailman.507.1750669973.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.507.1750669973.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
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
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
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] [RFC qemu-server v2 32/32] command line: switch to
blockdev starting with machine version 10.0
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 23.06.25 um 11:12 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel:
>>> + my $blockdev =
>>> PVE::QemuServer::Blockdev::generate_drive_blockdev($storecfg,
>>> $device, {});
>>> + mon_cmd($vmid, 'blockdev-add', %$blockdev, timeout => 60);
>>> +
>>> + return 1;
>
> should we handle error here ? (I don't known if a blockdev-add can
> fail , and if it need 60s timeout like drive-add, as I think that the
> blockdev open is done in device-add)
Yes, we could remove the throttle group again if it fails.
qmp_blockdev_add() calls bds_tree_init() which calls bdrv_open(). So I
think using 60 seconds here like for "drive_add" is a sensible choice.
Note that "device_add" currently only uses the default timeout of 5
seconds. I'm not aware about reports about failure there directly. I had
sent a patch to increase that a while ago [0] because of a report with
"netdev_add". But probably would be good to take in too.
[0]:
https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20241212100247.20926-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com/
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel