From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 500C91FF145 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2026 09:26:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1DD6D883A; Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:27:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <33737dc5-8f94-46c6-8e95-e02594f0479a@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 09:26:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server v2 1/2] tests: improve multiarch build support From: Dominik Csapak To: Thomas Lamprecht , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260204100425.1303295-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <88e10fbe-3231-40da-8ea2-d95fc1576715@proxmox.com> <7fd01f54-4148-4cb4-8d22-bf68d2e9855e@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <7fd01f54-4148-4cb4-8d22-bf68d2e9855e@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770279908749 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.031 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_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: IRTEFBCAIT437XJWUPP64AAKKZCZB5OB X-Message-ID-Hash: IRTEFBCAIT437XJWUPP64AAKKZCZB5OB 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: On 2/5/26 8:50 AM, Dominik Csapak wrote: > > > On 2/4/26 4:45 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Am 04.02.26 um 11:04 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > [snip] >>> +initialize_cpu_models(); >> >> this now still always does this on module load, would be nicer to >> actually >> only pay for that if needed by adding getter methods for each >> variable, like >> >> sub get_all_cpu_models { >>     initialize_cpu_models() if !defined($all_cpu_models); >>     return $all_cpu_models; >> } >> >> Same with a get_cpu_models_by_arch getter. > > not sure if that gains us anything, since we need the 'all_cpu_models' > hash statically for the 'reported-model' enum of $cpu_fmt, so even if i > put it in a getter, it would still get initialized on module load... > > also not sure if having two seperate getters make sense, since > the 'all_cpu_models' one depends on the cpu_models_by_arch one. > So in that case we'd have to initialize both anyway (again, on module > load). > > so this would make code a bit more complicated, but I don't really see > the gain here. > just to avoid confusion here, of course i'm still open to doing the getters for this (maybe there is another argument i can't think of right now), just let me know how you want me to continue >> >> And I'd split this and the host_arch change into separate patches, >> they are rather >> unrelated to each other. > > yes, this make sense of course > > > >