From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.schauer@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F8AEBB8A1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:20:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 232B91C481
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:20:48 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:20:47 +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 CD9FB48305
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:20:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4da6d2d9-c097-4dac-a3a1-6ab533610a2a@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:20:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20231214110903.32416-1-f.schauer@proxmox.com>
 <21e5a2e9-b646-4352-85ff-ae17e71b9eac@proxmox.com>
From: Filip Schauer <f.schauer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <21e5a2e9-b646-4352-85ff-ae17e71b9eac@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.151 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 v6 qemu-server] Prevent starting a 32-bit VM
 using a 64-bit OVMF BIOS
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: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:20:48 -0000

I think it makes sense to make the default for $kvm consistent and take
is_native($arch) into account. Since it is not officially supported to
run Proxmox VE on different architectures this breaking change would
likely not hurt.

On 15/12/2023 11:08, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> so we only need to care about the case when having a different host arch
> and emulating an x86_64 VM. But there it does make a difference and
> would be a breaking change because the default for hotplug would switch
> from 'kvm64' to 'qemu64'. Question is if we care enough. It's not
> officially supported to run Proxmox VE on different architectures at the
> moment and IMHO it'd be better to break it now (or with Proxmox VE 9)
> and be consistent for the future. And if we don't want to break it, add
> a comment for it.