From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 DF8139A31C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 May 2023 09:46:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BA4D124B09 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 May 2023 09:46:13 +0200 (CEST) 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>; Wed, 17 May 2023 09:46:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 01BFE453F8; Wed, 17 May 2023 09:46:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <683002e1-e5ac-6eb4-01df-d2f6fae2a1e2@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 09:46:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com> References: <20230517070246.660939-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20230517070246.660939-3-aderumier@odiso.com> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230517070246.660939-3-aderumier@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.285 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 NICE_REPLY_A -2.666 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-qemu 1/1] patch: add 0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch 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: Wed, 17 May 2023 07:46:43 -0000 Am 17.05.23 um 09:02 schrieb Alexandre Derumier: > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com> > --- > .../pve/0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch | 272 ++++++++++++++++++ > debian/patches/series | 1 + > 2 files changed, 273 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 debian/patches/pve/0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch > Do we really need this? Can't we just define these as custom CPU models in qemu-server? I'd really prefer to not pick up such patches if not necessary. Ideally, we reduce divergence from upstream QEMU rather than increase it. Since the patch was never applied, what other solution did upstream or libvirt go for? If we really do need this, we should rather ask upstream again if they can apply it or why they didn't first. Because it's two years old, so if there were good reasons, so without asking, it's unlikely that they will apply it soon and then we'd have to carry it around forever ourselves... > diff --git a/debian/patches/pve/0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch b/debian/patches/pve/0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..e98f862 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/debian/patches/pve/0001-add-cpu-models-x86-64-abi.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,272 @@ > +From 7d9ff48a96a7613a15e5427bc8987358e5529e45 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > +From: Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com> How did you apply the patch from the mail? Here should be the name of the one how sent the mail, not yours. > + > + CPUID.01H:ECX.pcid [bit 17] > + CPUID.01H:ECX.x2apic [bit 21] > + CPUID.01H:ECX.tsc-deadline [bit 24] > + CPUID.07H:EBX.invpcid [bit 10] > + CPUID.07H:EBX.avx512f [bit 16] > + CPUID.07H:EBX.avx512dq [bit 17] > + CPUID.07H:EBX.rdseed [bit 18] > + CPUID.07H:EBX.avx512cd [bit 28] > + CPUID.07H:EBX.avx512bw [bit 30] > + CPUID.07H:EBX.avx512vl [bit 31] > + CPUID.80000001H:ECX.3dnowprefetch [bit 8] > + CPUID.0DH:EAX.xsavec [bit 1] > + And here you lost the original Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> That is not okay. If you modified the patch you should do: Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> [AD: describe your changes here] Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com> With AD being your initials, but you can also use A or leave them out completely. The important part is that the changes are mentioned ;) > +--- > + target/i386/cpu.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > + 1 file changed, 162 insertions(+) > +