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 B0DB11FF140 for ; Fri, 08 May 2026 08:41:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ED351D39F; Fri, 8 May 2026 08:41:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 08:40:44 +0200 From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: Fiona Ebner Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server v4 06/17] cpu: register standard option for CPU format Message-ID: <7ts72kahk64b3bx3hncazfoofvlj3y3o44xzbpvmuyv57r5f6k@arposyjo6euc> References: <20260430160109.565536-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <20260430160109.565536-7-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <5ca70178-9c21-4487-a686-bfe3b4e5ffde@proxmox.com> <00227fce-d1f6-4c28-8aa9-879a3d6825a3@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00227fce-d1f6-4c28-8aa9-879a3d6825a3@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778222336644 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.783 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemuserver.pm,cpuconfig.pm] WEIRD_PORT 0.001 Uses non-standard port number for HTTP Message-ID-Hash: SNEBYZTW35OTGPVJRHKZOB4VDY4TRUKM X-Message-ID-Hash: SNEBYZTW35OTGPVJRHKZOB4VDY4TRUKM X-MailFrom: a.bied-charreton@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 CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com 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 Thu, May 07, 2026 at 04:08:27PM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 07.05.26 um 3:59 PM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > > On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 02:11:13PM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote: > >> Am 30.04.26 um 6:00 PM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > >>> Expose $cpu_fmt as a standard option to allow using it in endpoint > >>> definitions. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton > >>> --- > >>> src/PVE/QemuServer/CPUConfig.pm | 1 + > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/src/PVE/QemuServer/CPUConfig.pm b/src/PVE/QemuServer/CPUConfig.pm > >>> index 65ced94f..78603acc 100644 > >>> --- a/src/PVE/QemuServer/CPUConfig.pm > >>> +++ b/src/PVE/QemuServer/CPUConfig.pm > >>> @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ my $cpu_fmt = { > >>> optional => 1, > >>> }, > >>> }; > >>> +PVE::JSONSchema::register_standard_option('pve-qemu-cpu', $cpu_fmt); > >> > >> I wanted to say: all the others for QEMU use pve-qm-*, so we should > >> stick to that. But actually, there already is pve-qemu-machine as an > >> exception, so meh. Might still be better to stick to the more common prefix. > >> > > I agree, the problem is just that QemuServer.pm:855 already registers > > pve-qm-cpu: > > > > ``` > > while (my ($k, $v) = each %$confdesc) { > > PVE::JSONSchema::register_standard_option("pve-qm-$k", $v); > > } > > ``` > > Aha! > > > > > AFAICT, no other part of the code depends on that. We could just remove > > that, or maybe append some prefix to the new pve-qm-cpu, like > > pve-qm-cpu-conf? > > What do you think about 'pve-qm-custom-cpu-model'? Hopefully reduces the > confusion. > Yes, sounds good :) > > > >>> > >>> my $sev_fmt = { > >>> type => { > >> >