From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C46671FF137
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 03 Feb 2026 15:48:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9D52821ADC;
	Tue,  3 Feb 2026 15:49:26 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <a620baa7-415a-46c0-8ab4-ab5835371c70@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 15:48:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
Subject: Re: [PATCH-SERIES qemu-server v2 0/8] cpu config: support aarch64 CPU
 models
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20260129131021.118199-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <b413f1be-36ed-4f72-839d-637b8fd9bc48@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <b413f1be-36ed-4f72-839d-637b8fd9bc48@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770130057235
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                    -0.020 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
	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: ZNBQXIAGP3NHWZSLG5UWWSSBPZF6APE2
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZNBQXIAGP3NHWZSLG5UWWSSBPZF6APE2
X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 03.02.26 um 15:08 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> I'm not a super fan of "sprinkling" `eq 'x86_64'` or similar throughout
> the code, but for the cases used here it's probably ok.
> 
> If we encounter more such things though, I'd really like some
> more general lookup for arch -> values or something like this.
> 
> even if it's just a 'supports_x' helper that has a hash
> like
> {
> x86_64 => 1,
> aarch64 => 0,
> xxx => yyy,
> }
> etc
> 
> But as I wrote, for these use cases here probably ok, and
> definitely no blocker for now since that can be cleaned
> up whenever we see fit.

FWIW, this is also something I noticed, but I too found it OK
for the use case now. In the midterm it might be indeed nicer
to move those checks in local helpers like, e.g., a method named
arch_supports_hv_enlightment (and in there I would then care less
how it's checked), but again, not really a problem now.