From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BEB31FF56B
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:24:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 13C5212E03;
	Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:25:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <998214a0-4aac-4372-944f-9c618e027cc7@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:24:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Markus Frank <m.frank@proxmox.com>
References: <20240415085002.665246-1-m.frank@proxmox.com>
 <0f77e682-8177-472b-907f-b1f18be745d3@proxmox.com>
 <e422ad73-49ef-4598-92c1-f7a15419cec2@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <e422ad73-49ef-4598-92c1-f7a15419cec2@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.067 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v10 1/2] ui: machine: add viommu
 ComboBox
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 22.04.24 um 15:16 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> On 4/22/24 15:11, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> 
>>
>> Should we display some hint that Intel can/should also be used even if
>> you have an AMD? Maybe even just in the text we display, like "Intel
>> (also used for AMD)" but hope somebody can come up with something better.
>>
>>
> 
> mhh.. i mean it is a virtual device, so should we also add this info
> for e.g. e1000 devices?
> 

But with Intel/AMD, one is inclined to assume there is a dichotomy.
Personally, I'd go in assuming the "Intel" setting is wrong with my AMD
CPU and so might many users.

> since it's in the advanced section and it is documented in pve-docs,
> i'd leave it out here (we can still add a notice later if users
> are confused, but most users won't use/need it anyway)

Yes, we could also wait. But if the confusion can be avoided/reduced
without much effort, I think it's worth doing up-front.


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel