From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 6833A90DC8
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:48:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 507A129770
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:48:03 +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, 19 Dec 2022 15:48:02 +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 0185944D0F;
 Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:48:02 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <ff40c084-2e29-b6c6-41be-5ff5ca7dc489@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 15:48:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/109.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, aderumier@odiso.com
References: <20221209192726.1499142-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
 <20221209192726.1499142-10-aderumier@odiso.com>
 <59724033-3e2d-dfc3-403c-c99e3954c90c@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <59724033-3e2d-dfc3-403c-c99e3954c90c@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.546 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 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 qemu-server 09/10] tests: add virtio-mem
 tests
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, 19 Dec 2022 14:48:03 -0000

On 16/12/2022 14:42, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> It wasn't supported on QEMU 3.0 😉 But it raises the question if we
> should introduce version guards for the feature? Not sure what our
> current policy is when it comes to actively-opt-in features. Especially
> if it's still a technology preview.

Yeah with the whole thing being opt-in it isn't that bad, can still
help to encode them though, especially to guard against some dev or
admin mishaps, e.g., on migration to old-er node. So IMO not a must,
but quite probably the cleaner and better approach, so would only not
do it if it's a big PITA to handle (shouldn't really be).