From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D6A11FF137 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2026 15:09:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3379E1FF1E; Tue, 3 Feb 2026 15:09:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 15:09:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH-SERIES qemu-server v2 0/8] cpu config: support aarch64 CPU models To: Fiona Ebner , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260129131021.118199-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <20260129131021.118199-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770127716040 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.032 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 Message-ID-Hash: 7TNTTEHVHVHWQDMOU5YE3AJDX6NBJEPX X-Message-ID-Hash: 7TNTTEHVHVHWQDMOU5YE3AJDX6NBJEPX 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: Aside from what Thomas found with 'get_host_arch' there is one high level comment i have, but IMHO it's not a blocker: I'm not a super fan of "sprinkling" `eq 'x86_64'` or similar throughout the code, but for the cases used here it's probably ok. If we encounter more such things though, I'd really like some more general lookup for arch -> values or something like this. even if it's just a 'supports_x' helper that has a hash like { x86_64 => 1, aarch64 => 0, xxx => yyy, } etc But as I wrote, for these use cases here probably ok, and definitely no blocker for now since that can be cleaned up whenever we see fit. Aside from that, Reviewed-by: Dominik Csapak Tested-by: Dominik Csapak On 1/29/26 2:09 PM, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Changes in v2: > * also support querying flags for a specific arch > * style: fix include ordering in CPU API module > > Previously, only the default 'cortex-a57' CPU model would be used > implicitly. Group models and built-in models by architecture, since > that is what (most) use sites are interested in. Note that the 'host' > model only exists if the host arch matches the emulator/vCPU arch. > > Some use sites do require a list of all possible ones, e.g. custom > types, because they are not namespaced by arch. > > qemu-server: > > Fiona Ebner (8): > cpu config: introduce pve-qm-cpu-arch standard option for virtual CPU > architecture > cpu config: guard adding hyperv enlightenments by arch > cpu config: 'hidden' option only applies to vCPUs with x86_64 arch > cpu config: introduce module-wide $host_arch variable > cpu config: support aarch64 CPU models > api: cpu: allow querying CPU models for a given architecture > cpu config: support aarch64 CPU flags > api: cpu flags: allow querying CPU flags for a given architecture > > src/PVE/API2/Qemu/CPU.pm | 8 +- > src/PVE/API2/Qemu/CPUFlags.pm | 11 +- > src/PVE/QemuServer.pm | 7 +- > src/PVE/QemuServer/CPUConfig.pm | 453 ++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 4 files changed, 279 insertions(+), 200 deletions(-) > > > Summary over all repositories: > 4 files changed, 279 insertions(+), 200 deletions(-) >