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 BAB1AC17A9
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:36:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9B68D3725D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:36:40 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:36:39 +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 610234914A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:36:39 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <eee3fbd035a217ef3b0952eaeb24010d7071d755.camel@proxmox.com>
From: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
To: Hannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=FCrr?= <h.duerr@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE
 development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:36:29 +0100
In-Reply-To: <e0829d55-208d-41d7-8482-7776a6bf74dd@proxmox.com>
References: <20240116131134.131951-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <e0829d55-208d-41d7-8482-7776a6bf74dd@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 0.052 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
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 13:36:40 -0000

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.