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 0B9661FF0B0 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:44:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9C0132160C; Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:44:15 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:44:10 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server 1/4] block job: monitor: document that job-complete is not used if source differs from target From: "Elias Huhsovitz" To: "Fiona Ebner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20261022093901.52732-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20261022093901.52732-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20261022093901.52732-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792745050733 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.505 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: GCMFXT6I3ZDKPUJVPSH3QD2PZHD527I5 X-Message-ID-Hash: GCMFXT6I3ZDKPUJVPSH3QD2PZHD527I5 X-MailFrom: e.huhsovitz@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: Comments inline. On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 11:38 AM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner > --- > src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm b/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob= .pm > index 493dda33..5757c24f 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm > @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ sub qemu_blockjobs_cancel { > =20 > # $completion can be either > # 'complete': wait until all jobs are ready, job-complete them (default) > +# If the source peer is not the same as the destination VM, uses blo= ck-job-cancel instead. The comments reads like, this a special behaviour of the 'complete', case. But in this case, isn't the 'complete' & 'cancel' behaviour the same? IMO this is just a property of the function. What about something like: If the source peer is not the same as the destination VM, no disk is switched: 'complete' and 'cancel' both block-job-cancel instead. ('skip' and 'auto' are unaffected.) > # 'cancel': wait until all jobs are ready, block-job-cancel them > # 'skip': wait until all jobs are ready, return with block jobs in ready= state > # 'auto': wait until all jobs disappear, only use for jobs which complet= e automatically