From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A8D61FF164 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:34:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 94D25BF1C; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:34:25 +0100 (CET) From: Daniel Herzig To: Daniel Kral In-Reply-To: <6fc390ea-d36a-4b0a-a138-2b5aa47624c3@proxmox.com> (Daniel Kral's message of "Thu, 16 Jan 2025 16:18:33 +0100") References: <20250113085608.99498-1-d.herzig@proxmox.com> <6fc390ea-d36a-4b0a-a138-2b5aa47624c3@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:34:18 +0100 Message-ID: <87frlhn079.fsf@proxmox.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.296 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 qemu-server, manager 00/12] bugzilla #4225 -- improve handling of unavailable ISOs 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Thanks for this review, this helps a lot on setting up an optimized v3. Daniel Kral writes: > >> If the parameter is set to 0, the configuration will temporarily >> changed to use >> 'none' as file for the cd drive, which allows qemu to start up the machine. >> The configuration is not changed in this process to avoid unexpected behaviour. >> Instead a log_warn will be issued. >> For transition reasons an unset parameter acts like 'required=1'. In >> this case >> the startup process will die earlier than currently, if the file is missing or >> the underlying storage not available. > > Hm, I have discussed with Friedrich about this off-list, because I'm > thinking about "optional" being another name for this flag, since it > should be required by default for VMs that are not explicitly setting > this option, i.e. `optional=0`, and if someone sets it explicitly to > `optional=1` the CDROM can be ignored if it is non-existent. > > I think this could also simplify the logic overall, but it depends on > how we want to present this to users (i.e. the WebGUI). > > Are there reasons against this? What do you think? I have no hard feelings about the naming of this parameter. Indeed, earlier it already had other names as well already. I think the only reason why this obviously best-matching label did not come into closer consideration, is that on parameter definition this would lead to the possibly confusing construction: # optional => { # [..] # optional => 1, # [...] I'm not entirely sure, if this could lead to unexpected side-effects despite looking funny. I'm open for different parameter-naming though! > >> If however a new VM is created from the WebGUI, the corresponding >> added checkbox >> is not checked by default, and the resulting 'required=0' will be written to >> the configuration. > > IMO, I also think that new VMs should be set to `required=0` by > default, but this change should probably be postponed to 9.0 as it > would break the current WebGUI "user-API". > With the patches applied, this will be handled that way when a new VM gets created through the GUI (the box is unchecked by default in this case). So currently it's kind of soft-defaulting to 'required=0' with visual feedback. But I'm not against rather propagating 'required=1' for 8.x. To avoid conflicts with automated setup via 'qm create' that possibly depend on attached ISOs after intial installation nothing will be set at all on 'headless' actions. >> To allow for proper testing and building some additions and minor >> changes >> where made to to the testing framework as well. >> Not exactly part of #4225, but related to it, this patch series adds >> an 'Eject' >> button to the hardwareview in the WebGUI, which can be used as a convenience >> shortcut to manually editing the missing ISO file to 'Do not use any media'. > > In this case it is better to move unrelated changes into a separate > patch series, so they can be reviewed on their own :). > True :). >> This series supersedes: >> https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20241025150243.134466-1-d.herzig@proxmox.com/ > > I also just noticed that the repository names are gone from the > patches - seems like they were accidentally removed when formatting > the second version of these patches because they were there in v1. Thanks, good catch, they'll be back in v3! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel