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 E56F2C13F4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:09:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B7FC91B444
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:08:40 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:08:40 +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 D146F443F1;
 Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:08:39 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <cc57273b-8f61-4a14-8758-39a9fc24e21b@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:08:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>,
 "d.csapak@proxmox.com" <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
 "aderumier@odiso.com" <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <20240112200806.309336-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
 <9c1ce32e-e54d-460d-81e4-8e4829853b24@proxmox.com>
 <c02c2de83fa93c2adae2ce28277e10da79fdea54.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <c02c2de83fa93c2adae2ce28277e10da79fdea54.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.075 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 pve-manager] qemu: bump max cores to 256 by
 socket
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, 15 Jan 2024 13:09:10 -0000

Am 15.01.24 um 13:43 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre:
> 
> 
> Maybe an improvement in qemu-server, could be to add additional check
> at vm start, (maybe a simple warn), depending of qemu version or
> setup. 
> For example, 1024 cores only works with q35 && qemu 8.1,
> it could be interesting to give an clean hint  mesage to user instead
> a qemu process error.
> 

Is the QEMU error message understandable? If yes, I don't see much value
in adding such a heuristic and warning ourselves. If no, we can either
improve the QEMU error message or do as you suggested.