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 0A8D61FF164
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; 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 <d.herzig@proxmox.com>
To: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
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 <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>
Cc: 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>
Thanks for this review, this helps a lot on setting up an optimized v3.
Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com> 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