From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 D968574FF2
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9DFB9E22
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
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 id 679DE9E17
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:50:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A09D4672E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:50:19 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <8e227c7f-725c-96b3-b141-3f33ca31cb7c@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:50:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/90.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20210604094748.3383339-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210604094748.3383339-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.662 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 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: [pve-devel] partially-applied: [PATCH qemu-server 0/6] fix #2862:
 more template backup fixes
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:50:22 -0000

On 04.06.21 11:47, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
> first one is unrelated, rest should fix the remaining cases where
> template backups to PBS fail.
>=20
> Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler (6):
>   test: unbreak restore_config_test
>   drive: factor out read-only helper
>   template: mark efidisk as read-only
>   test: add template drive read-only tests
>   template: add -snapshot to KVM command

applied above, i.e., all but the RFC below. I adapted the EFI-disk one to=
 what
Stefan proposed, i.e., just drop the readonly if off. There also was the =
need to
solve a merge conflict, so I just squashed it all into that one.

>   template: start VM for VMA backup