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 5EA9D1FF0B3 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:56:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D67D221253; Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:56:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:56:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server 1/4] block job: monitor: document that job-complete is not used if source differs from target To: Elias Huhsovitz , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20261022093901.52732-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20261022093901.52732-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793177780836 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.340 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: 2CF44Y2YMJEOCW7XR7NQ3DUCIWWEFMTN X-Message-ID-Hash: 2CF44Y2YMJEOCW7XR7NQ3DUCIWWEFMTN X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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: Am 23.10.26 um 10:44 AM schrieb Elias Huhsovitz: > Comments inline. > > On Thu Oct 22, 2026 at 11:38 AM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner >> --- >> src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm b/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm >> index 493dda33..5757c24f 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/QemuServer/BlockJob.pm >> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ sub qemu_blockjobs_cancel { >> >> # $completion can be either >> # 'complete': wait until all jobs are ready, job-complete them (default) >> +# If the source peer is not the same as the destination VM, uses block-job-cancel instead. > > The comments reads like, this a special behaviour of the 'complete', > case. But in this case, isn't the 'complete' & 'cancel' behaviour the > same? Yes, it reads like that, because it is. For cancel, this is not a special case; cancel always does block-job-cancel. I would find it somewhat confusing to talk about it for cancel if it is the same result. > > IMO this is just a property of the function. What about something like: > > If the source peer is not the same as the destination VM, no disk > is switched: 'complete' and 'cancel' both block-job-cancel instead. > ('skip' and 'auto' are unaffected.) > >> # 'cancel': wait until all jobs are ready, block-job-cancel them >> # 'skip': wait until all jobs are ready, return with block jobs in ready state >> # 'auto': wait until all jobs disappear, only use for jobs which complete automatically >