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 BD6B71FF0B3 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 16:51:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3D4342165E; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 16:51:28 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 16:51:24 +0100 Message-Id: To: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , "Fiona Ebner" , Subject: Re: [PATCH-SERIES many v6 00/26] migration: strict config check for intra-cluster migration From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20261103124831.139399-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1794412284340 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.200 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: TXY72JXTSYOH3S4O5KXAQD7F5K3GFEA2 X-Message-ID-Hash: TXY72JXTSYOH3S4O5KXAQD7F5K3GFEA2 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: fwiw, I also ran the entire set of E2E tests on this. All of the tests passed. On Wed Nov 11, 2026 at 4:41 PM CET, Michael K=C3=B6ppl wrote: > Tested this series on a 3-node cluster: > - Introduced a new config option for both VMs and CTs on node A (so > it's considered valid there), then set the option for VM 100 and [snip]