From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5254B1FF13A for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:41:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C5AEE21489; Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:41:26 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:40:44 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH-SERIES ha-manager 0/2] fix #6084: allow dropping maintenance state with active HA resources From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Daniel Kral" , Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260708084205.69947-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260708084205.69947-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783521635659 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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: OMZBDYCI74THRZX6I7SZ3FNZUILUFUTO X-Message-ID-Hash: OMZBDYCI74THRZX6I7SZ3FNZUILUFUTO 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: Thanks for these patches! Tested this in a 3-node cluster by adding a directory storage to node1 only and creating a guest on it, then enabling maintenance mode for node1, waiting for the migration of the guest to fail, then disabling maintenance mode again. Without the fix, when checking with `ha-manager status`, node1's LRM status was still reported as "maintenance". With the patches applied, the LRM status changed from "maintenance" to "active" again. I also had a look at the code. Apart from 1 nit, did not notice anything and the patches look very solid to me. Nice work! Consider this: Tested-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl Reviewed-by: Michael K=C3=B6ppl On Wed Jul 8, 2026 at 10:42 AM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > As reported in BZ #6804 [0], if a node held active HA resources, that > could not be moved to any other node, while a node maintenance request > has been placed and dropped again, the node's LRM would stay in > maintenance state even though the maintenance mode was lifted. > > This small patch series fixes the issue by also allowing LRMs with > active assigned HA resources to be moved out of maintenance state again. [snip]