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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ECCA6765B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:22:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 88D541499D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:21:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DE2351498D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:21:38 +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 9D72444861
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:21:38 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20200826085126.24352-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <965d090a-5921-a3ab-b088-b5d62e7ef441@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:21:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/80.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200826085126.24352-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.100 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 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, lxc.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH container v2] lxc: resize: fix #2790
 return message in case of disk already at size
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: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 07:22:10 -0000

On 26.08.20 10:51, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
> Otherwise the API would return an error message because returning an
> empty value is not defined in the API.
> 
> By dying we avoid confusions as the return will be an error and not a
> successful call which should return a task ID.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2: change from return to die as the result of the feedback to the
> first version [0]
> 
> We should probably align the resize endpoint on the qemu side
> accordingly as right now it has no return values defined at all and does
> not return anything in this case.
> 
> [0] https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2020-August/044597.html
> 
>  src/PVE/API2/LXC.pm | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!