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 46FD91FF144 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:28:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 71E2E8E76; Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:28:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 10:27:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server 8/8] api: qemu: Add CRUD handlers for custom CPU models To: Arthur Bied-Charreton References: <20260312084021.124465-1-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <20260312084021.124465-9-a.bied-charreton@proxmox.com> <1dd87137-0907-453d-8add-4c4dfdfe73ea@proxmox.com> <3ddcijjmqsdhblts56mfczmphzd52mdcnotiamyd3zsnfudhzh@624zuthx4tnk> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774344425591 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.147 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: HH253AWFRFDJWOI5E7MVRAUG3LOTLECA X-Message-ID-Hash: HH253AWFRFDJWOI5E7MVRAUG3LOTLECA X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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: Am 23.03.26 um 5:09 PM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 05:04:15PM +0100, Arthur Bied-Charreton wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 03:46:45PM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> Am 12.03.26 um 9:40 AM schrieb Arthur Bied-Charreton: >>> > [...] >>> Having the 'model' endpoint below here seems wrong to me, for two reasons: >>> >>> 1. Since the 'cpu' endpoint already returns a result other than an index >>> of sub-endpoints, it cannot at the same time show in its result that the >>> sub-endpoint exists, and this breaks the directory structure. >>> >>> 2. It's below /nodes/ but it's touching cluster-wide configuration. >>> >>> I think we should just have a new, dedicated endpoint, maybe >>> /cluster/qemu/custom-cpu-models? And then, we might want to drop the >>> need for specifying a 'custom-' prefix when using the calls? >> I agree that the current state feels weird. I went with the old patch's >> approach but I should have rethought it a bit more, especially the >> custom- prefix, the URL already carries that so it's quite redundant. >> >> I like the idea of a new /cluster/qemu/custom-cpu-models route, will >> move the endpoint over to pve-manager for v2 and drop the custom- prefix >> in the process. >> >> By that logic, the cpu-flags endpoint should probably also be cluster-wide, >> since it returns data for all nodes in the cluster? It technically takes >> a node parameter, but that is ignored by the handler (both before and >> after this series). What do you think? >> > Just realizing that this would be a breaking change since that endpoint > is pre-existing, would be better not to touch it, my bad... No worries! If we would have a good reason to move it, we could add a second endpoint, deprecate the old one and drop it with the next major release. But maybe we should keep that endpoint as-is too, since it is concerned with the VM-specific flags on the node (it does depend on the installed qemu-server version, even if new VM-specific flags are rarely addded), and introduce a new one below /cluster/qemu/ for the cluster-wide flags querying? We could still think about deprecating it in the long run and also sending the VM-specific flags via kv and have them via the cluster-wide endpoint, but not sure about that and I don't think it's too relevant for the series. How does that sound?