From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 031C31FF168
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue,  4 Feb 2025 16:34:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1CAF11A3FF;
	Tue,  4 Feb 2025 16:34:43 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <c66b4469-a47c-45c2-b9ed-9d540fcd5aa8@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:34:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20250204152428.146743-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20250204152428.146743-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.047 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] qmp helpers: device add: use
 HMP interface
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 04.02.25 um 16:24 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> The timeout of 60 seconds is used, because that is the same that's
> currently used by the 'drive_add' HMP commands and a too low timeout
> is known to cause issues [0]. While 'drive_del' uses 10 minutes, there
> were no issues reported with the 'device_del' operations using the
> default timeout until now, but it still makes sense to increase,
> because for some devices IO might need to happen during detach, so use
> 60 seconds for now too.

Actually, I'm a bit torn with the 60 seconds. We really didn't have many
reports of issues here and this might feel like too long from a user
perspective. Increasing in specific cases can always still be done, but
device-plug is often done interactively, so might be bad UX to have too
much. The bug report [0] mentions that 7 seconds is enough for the
operation, so maybe using 30 seconds as the timeout is better?


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel