From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4D0394728
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:57:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A852C648E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:56:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:56:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CF0CE48494
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:56:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <b040f58d-a9cb-c1a4-f061-284014cee9b8@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 08:56:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:110.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/110.0
Content-Language: en-GB, de-AT
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20230224073739.5728-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230224073739.5728-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.051 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 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
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH qemu-server] clone: remove outdated
 TODO about bandwidth limit
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 07:57:05 -0000

Am 24/02/2023 um 08:37 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> Respecting bandwidth limit for offline clone was implemented by commit
> 56d16f16 ("fix #4249: make image clone or conversion respect bandwidth
> limit"). It's still not respected for EFI disks, but those are small,
> so just ignore it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> Would've applied it directly, but am not 100% sure about the EFI disk
> - technically, we'd need to apply the limit there too, but seems not
> really worth the effort (qemu-img dd doesn't have the option) - so
> sending it for discussion.
> 
>  PVE/QemuServer.pm | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!