From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 372B8761C7 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:03:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DC9A213E2 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:03:01 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 6B107213D5 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:03:00 +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 38F5246380 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:03:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:02:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/89.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Reiter References: <20210308134338.31391-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210308134338.31391-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.011 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 -0.001 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 PATCH qemu-server] fix bootdisk_size for new bootorder config scheme X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:03:01 -0000 On 08.03.21 14:43, Dominik Csapak wrote: > Previously, we ever only had a single boot *disk*, while possibly > having multiple cdroms/nics in the boot order > > e.g. the config: > > boot: dnc > bootdisk: scsi0 > ide0: media=cdrom,none > scsi0: xxx > net0: ... > > would return the size of scsi0 even though it would first boot > from cdrom/network. > > When editing the bootorder with such a legacy config, we > remove the 'bootdisk' property and replace the legacy notation > with an explicit order, but we only search the first disk > for the size now. > > Restore that behaviour by iterating over all disks in the boot > order property string until we get one that is not a cdrom > and has a size. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > i cannot remember if that change was deliberate, but at least one > user ran into that: > > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/possible-bug-boot-disk-size-shows-as-0b.85454/ > @Stefan, can you, as main author behind the change in question, please give this a review - thanks!