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 92F401FF15C for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:11:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D276ED0FF; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:12:38 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:12:05 +0100 Message-Id: To: "Daniel Kral" , "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Proxmox VE development discussion" From: "Daniel Kral" X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-10-gf12c391cb5b4 References: <20251027164513.542678-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20251027164513.542678-3-d.kral@proxmox.com> <9b51dec9-a6e3-429f-8f5f-4138f658c381@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763115098710 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.017 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH perl-rs v3 1/2] pve-rs: resource_scheduling: allow granular usage changes 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Thu Nov 13, 2025 at 10:30 AM CET, Daniel Kral wrote: > On Wed Nov 12, 2025 at 11:49 AM CET, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Am 27.10.25 um 17:46 schrieb Daniel Kral: >>> Needs a build dependency bump for >>> librust-proxmox-resource-scheduling-dev and a versioned breaks for >>> pve-ha-manager. >> >> The latter only due to the (signature) change to add_service_usage_to_node, or? >> While versioned breaks can be done, if it's somewhat easy to avoid them it's >> always better to do so, especially as it makes downgrades much easier >> >> Can we keep backward compat without having to bend to >> much backwards? E.g. adding a new method for the new more granular way while >> keeping add_service_usage_to_node as is, like "record_service_usage_for_node" (or >> just slap a 2 at the end of the method name is also a simple trick that, while not >> beautiful, works and avoids bikeshedding). > > I'd go for that route, but the new `sid` parameter is needed to track on > which node a service puts its load on, i.e. where we need to remove it > later. That's information we didn't get before and we unfortunately > cannot make it optional, e.g. shoving it in the already existing > StaticNodeUsage as a Option<_> field. (Haven't tested it yet, but this > shouldn't be an API break for perlmod?) > > Another approach would be to allow both the non-granular and granular > behavior to coexist - at least for the 9.x series, even though it might > be a little ugly, it's probably not too bad. > > What do you think? As noted off-list, I've gone with staying the breaking change for v4 now, as there's no neet way to do this otherwise. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel