From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7FD91FF13F for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:27:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E0F6815F47; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:27:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <56d0b71c-d942-47d8-9318-cb2d3d40f25d@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:27:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server 0/2] memory: add verbose_description to numa policy To: Maximiliano Sandoval , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260312105044.191421-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20260312105044.191421-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773322015831 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.039 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) 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: TDKDTYIFATPRFQAZGL6XBNU4PMUCLGMJ X-Message-ID-Hash: TDKDTYIFATPRFQAZGL6XBNU4PMUCLGMJ X-MailFrom: d.csapak@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: both commit message could be longer (or be there at all ;) ) one could note e.g. that the description was taken from the qemu manpage. aside from that and the one comment on 2/2 (see separate mail) patches LGTM On 3/12/26 11:50 AM, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > Adds a more flavorful description to the NUMA policy option based on > both qemu and the kernel's documentation. For now we simply paste the > contents of the `qemu-system-x86_64(1)` manual. > > One open question is if there is any precedent for URIs in verbose > descriptions. > > This came up in a couple of cases in enterprise support where more > information was requested regarding the policy. > > Regarding the 'default' value. NUMA policies were added on our side at > 2ed5d5724 but there is no mention of why the 'default' policy is not > used as a default. On QEMU's side the first appearance of policies was a > 2.1.0 (Aug 2014) and there was a 'default' value at that stage. > > Maximiliano Sandoval (2): > memory: add verbose_description to numa policy > memory: add default numa allocation policy > > src/PVE/QemuServer/Memory.pm | 17 ++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >