From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.zeidler@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 965BBC1895
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:12:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7658238B94
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:11:35 +0100 (CET)
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>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:11:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9D62C4915C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:11:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <06aca5f8d8edfbe0c666ae470977d0851806db00.camel@proxmox.com>
From: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, 
 Hannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=FCrr?= <h.duerr@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:11:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <eee3fbd035a217ef3b0952eaeb24010d7071d755.camel@proxmox.com>
References: <20240116131134.131951-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <e0829d55-208d-41d7-8482-7776a6bf74dd@proxmox.com>
 <eee3fbd035a217ef3b0952eaeb24010d7071d755.camel@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -1.349 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
 SCC_BODY_URI_ONLY       2.799 -
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
 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] [PATCH docs] ballooning example: improve wording
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: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:12:05 -0000

On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 14:36 +0100, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 14:28 +0100, Hannes D=C3=BCrr wrote:
> > I don't think this is an improvement of the wording, liked the previous=
=20
> > version more.
> > Are there people who have not understood the wording?
> It's not an extra (additional) amount of memory for this VM, but its
> total. Therefore, using the word "extra" can be misleading/confusing in
> my opinion.
Actually it is the additional amount of memory and not the total.
Thanks! I've sent a new patch:
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-January/061396.html