From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EC2F1FF0E1 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:34:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EE99021605; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:34:50 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:34:46 +0200 Message-Id: To: "Daniel Kral" , "Dominik Rusovac" , Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox 03/15] fix #7993: resource-scheduling: lift to weighted load balancing From: "Daniel Kral" X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0-10-g6373ac9d2179-dirty References: <20261021085932.1196302-1-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> <20261021085932.1196302-4-d.rusovac@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792668886140 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.730 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) 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 Message-ID-Hash: LC547EVPT3UZMDF5BQJRDJ4CGDX3VWFG X-Message-ID-Hash: LC547EVPT3UZMDF5BQJRDJ4CGDX3VWFG X-MailFrom: d.kral@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: As discussed off-list, another idea to solve the issue with backwards compatibility is to make the Scheduler struct configurable with the weights, so that the weighted_ versions of the function calls aren't needed anymore. As already noted in the pve-rs review part, an options struct with only optional fields at the end of the bindings should be treated as optional alltogether so that it doesn't break any callers from Perl, but should definitely be checked (maybe even with test cases). On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 11:15 AM CEST, Daniel Kral wrote: > Thanks a lot for working on this, nice work! Especially the cover letter > is a very interesting analysis and read! > > Looks generally sound, though there are some comments inline on having > backwards and forwards compatibility and some patch cleanup.