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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA08BB13B for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:19:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6399297E0 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:19:27 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:19:24 +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 3FC2241A0D for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:19:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <6bc2caef-3b3f-468e-b75e-45a15bc5ed1a@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:19:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20240320125158.2094900-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20240320125158.2094900-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20240320125158.2094900-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.074 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemu.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 3/3] api: include not mapped resources for running vms in migrate preconditions 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: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:19:27 -0000 Am 20.03.24 um 13:51 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > so that we can show a proper warning in the migrate dialog and check it > in the bulk migrate precondition check > > the unavailable_storages and allowed_nodes should be the same as before > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > not super happy with this partial approach, we probably should just > always return the 'allowed_nodes' and 'not_allowed_nodes' and change > the gui to handle the running vs not running state? So not_allowed_nodes can already be returned in both states after this patch. But allowed nodes still only if not running. I mean, there could be API users that break if we'd always return allowed_nodes, but it doesn't sound unreasonable for me to do so. Might even be an opportunity to structure the code in a bit more straightforward manner. > > PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm > index 8581a529..b0f155f7 100644 > --- a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm > +++ b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm > @@ -4439,7 +4439,7 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ > not_allowed_nodes => { > type => 'object', > optional => 1, > - description => "List not allowed nodes with additional informations, only passed if VM is offline" > + description => "List not allowed nodes with additional informations", > }, > local_disks => { > type => 'array', > @@ -4496,25 +4496,28 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({ > > # if vm is not running, return target nodes where local storage/mapped devices are available > # for offline migration > + my $checked_nodes = {}; > + my $allowed_nodes = []; > if (!$res->{running}) { > - $res->{allowed_nodes} = []; > - my $checked_nodes = PVE::QemuServer::check_local_storage_availability($vmconf, $storecfg); > + $checked_nodes = PVE::QemuServer::check_local_storage_availability($vmconf, $storecfg); > delete $checked_nodes->{$localnode}; > + } > > - foreach my $node (keys %$checked_nodes) { > - my $missing_mappings = $missing_mappings_by_node->{$node}; > - if (scalar($missing_mappings->@*)) { > - $checked_nodes->{$node}->{'unavailable-resources'} = $missing_mappings; > - next; > - } > + foreach my $node ((keys $checked_nodes->%*, keys $missing_mappings_by_node->%*)) { Style nit: please use 'for' instead of 'foreach' Like this you might iterate over certain nodes twice and then push them onto the allowed_nodes array twice. > + my $missing_mappings = $missing_mappings_by_node->{$node}; > + if (scalar($missing_mappings->@*)) { > + $checked_nodes->{$node}->{'unavailable-resources'} = $missing_mappings; > + next; > + } > > + if (!$res->{running}) { > if (!defined($checked_nodes->{$node}->{unavailable_storages})) { > - push @{$res->{allowed_nodes}}, $node; > + push $allowed_nodes->@*, $node; > } > - > } > - $res->{not_allowed_nodes} = $checked_nodes; > } > + $res->{not_allowed_nodes} = $checked_nodes if scalar(keys($checked_nodes->%*)) || !$res->{running}; Why not return the empty hash if running? The whole post-if is just covering that single special case. > + $res->{allowed_nodes} = $allowed_nodes if scalar($allowed_nodes->@*) || !$res->{running}; Nit: Right now, $allowed_nodes can only be non-empty if !$res->{running}, so the first part of the check is redundant. > > my $local_disks = &$check_vm_disks_local($storecfg, $vmconf, $vmid); > $res->{local_disks} = [ values %$local_disks ];;