From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 D1EEB8D6BF
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 17:54:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B2CC5A7AA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 17:54:55 +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,  8 Nov 2022 17:54:55 +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 E224342272
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 17:54:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <2ce86d4e-4674-193a-b7aa-aa99eaa55ca6@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:54:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/107.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
References: <20220609111408.112894-1-m.frank@proxmox.com>
 <e9a5082f-aa47-e521-66ec-e441ec9a24df@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9a5082f-aa47-e521-66ec-e441ec9a24df@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.033 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] QEMU AMD SEV enable
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, 08 Nov 2022 16:54:55 -0000

Am 02/09/2022 um 13:24 schrieb Daniel Tschlatscher:
> Tested-by: Daniel Tschlatscher <d.tschlatscher@proxmox.com>
> 

thx!

> 
> Some more comments inline in the code, all of which are non-breaking though:

@Markus, Daniels comment seem all reasonable and not only cosmetic (e.g.,
the typo in the schema for "minimum") can you please send a v2 with those
addressed, maybe also include a new docs patch with the respective comments
there either addressed, if sensible - thx!