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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69196188A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 09:05:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9A3F32F7F1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 09:05:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 262272F7E7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 09:05:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E7FFA44A70
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 09:05:15 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20200824092131.24617-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <b7916e00-ee6f-3624-9d3f-68eee1ac0872@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <c8554742-95f2-5d60-e891-202255c17785@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:05:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/81.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b7916e00-ee6f-3624-9d3f-68eee1ac0872@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.192 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A            -2.69 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] vzdump: use minimal VM config
 for offline backup
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: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 07:05:16 -0000

On 07.09.20 08:59, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> does that not break the feature that
> we can start a vm that started a backup while stopped?
>=20
> atm we can start a backup on a stopped vm, and then simply start
> it, without aborting the backup. if i read the patch
> correctly, the vm now has just a minimal config and not
> what the user configured
>=20

Yes, as the commit subject mentions, the whole idea of the patch was to u=
se
a minimal config ;-)

this was before I talked about the whole "no shutdown" thing for VMs, whe=
re
Stefan acknowledged himself that this patch breaks various things, existi=
ng
and planned, about that behavior.
We should had replied that to this patch too though.