From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.weber@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 C4767EAC3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:04:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AF286A05B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:04:29 +0200 (CEST) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:04:28 +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 E60E548E2F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:04:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <e0509dc7-e60d-778a-a9d2-44b23423ff42@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:04:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20230126083214.711099-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230126083214.711099-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.630 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC manager/container/qemu-server/guest-common 0/4] fix #4474: stop tasks may overrule shutdown tasks 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: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 09:04:29 -0000 Lost track of this a bit, reviving due to user interest [1]. As the series does not apply anymore, I'll send a new version in any case, but wanted to ask for feedback before I do. My questions from the cover letter still apply: On 26/01/2023 09:32, Friedrich Weber wrote: > * Does it make sense to have overruling optional? Or should "stop" > generally overrule shutdown? This might lead to confusing > interactions, as Thomas noted [0]. > * Backend: Is there a more elegant way to overrule shutdown tasks, > and a better place than pve-guest-common? > * Frontend: When stopping a VM/CT, we already ask for confirmation. > Is an (occasional) second modal dialog with a lot of text a good user > experience? Alternatively, I could imagine a checkbox in the first > dialog saying "Overrule any active shutdown tasks". Actually I don't really like the second modal dialog. What about the following: When the user clicks "Stop" and the frontend detects an active shutdown task, the already-existing "Confirm" dialog has an additional default-off checkbox "Kill active shutdown tasks" (or similar). This way the default behavior does not change, but users do not have to kill active shutdown tasks manually anymore. > * This patch series forbids `overrule-shutdown=1` for HA-managed VMs/CTs > because I didn't know how overruling should work in a HA setting. Do > you have any suggestions? > > Since this is my first patch with more than a few lines, I'm especially > happy about feedback regarding coding style, naming, anything. :) [1] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/16235/post-590240