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 DFB7894D71 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:59:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C12F717EC3 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:59:23 +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 ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:59:22 +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 1CF4644F15 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:59:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <052064dd-fff8-4c5e-a35f-261e76c2c4c3@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:59:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231219094023.25726-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <20231219094023.25726-6-f.schauer@proxmox.com> <1d79d880-e0f6-4875-ae5b-483a62028a60@proxmox.com> <3d29eab1-9f42-4ade-bc1b-f49126509ef8@proxmox.com> From: Filip Schauer In-Reply-To: <3d29eab1-9f42-4ade-bc1b-f49126509ef8@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.101 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 qemu-server 4/4] cpu config: Unify the default value for 'kvm' 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: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:59:23 -0000 On 22/02/2024 10:35, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Yes, I also think the change is fine. But breaking ARM64 guests on a > x86_64 host would not be fine. The point is CPU hotplug already doesn't > work here, so the commit message should be adapted to mention that. > > I saw you completely removed the commit message in v8. Should be added > back with the additional information, but that alone doesn't warrant a > v9, can also be done when applying. The commit message was updated here: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-February/061937.html