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 C57661FF146 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:11:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 363A71A8A; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:11:24 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:10:48 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH manager/qemu-server v2 0/2] fix #5032: sync guest time after restore from saved state From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Jakob Klocker" , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260622134711.108611-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260622134711.108611-1-j.klocker@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782223838058 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.090 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: DEA5HS3DRT6VTS55OBTP4L7LXK4OAWOH X-Message-ID-Hash: DEA5HS3DRT6VTS55OBTP4L7LXK4OAWOH X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Tested these patches in combination with proxmox-test-tools. proxmox-test-instance would regularly run into problems with rollbacks of entire clusters of test instances when using snapshots with RAM. I ran automated test runs with rollbacks with RAM in between and checked that the guest time was the same as on the host for each new test that was run. Works as expected! Had a look at the code as well. With the patch mentioned in the cover letter applied before, the code lgtm as well! Consider this: Tested-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl Reviewed-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl On Mon Jun 22, 2026 at 3:47 PM CEST, Jakob Klocker wrote: > This series adds a new agent option set-time-on-resume to > automatically synchronize the guest clock via the QEMU Guest Agent=20 > after operations that can leave the guest time stale. The option is=20 > enabled by default when the QEMU Guest Agent is configured. [snip]