Merge ~sergiodj/ubuntu/+source/qemu:max-cpu-too-low-jammy into ubuntu/+source/qemu:ubuntu/jammy-devel
Status: | Merged | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Approved by: | Andreas Hasenack | ||||
Approved revision: | 1c1ca4abf019a0eacb242b3d79cf61861fcfedec | ||||
Merge reported by: | Andreas Hasenack | ||||
Merged at revision: | 1c1ca4abf019a0eacb242b3d79cf61861fcfedec | ||||
Proposed branch: | ~sergiodj/ubuntu/+source/qemu:max-cpu-too-low-jammy | ||||
Merge into: | ubuntu/+source/qemu:ubuntu/jammy-devel | ||||
Diff against target: |
89 lines (+67/-0) 3 files modified
debian/changelog (+7/-0) debian/patches/series (+1/-0) debian/patches/ubuntu/lp2012763-maxcpus-too-low.patch (+59/-0) |
||||
Related bugs: |
|
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Andreas Hasenack | Approve | ||
Bryce Harrington (community) | Needs Information | ||
Christian Ehrhardt | Pending | ||
Canonical Server Reporter | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+454078@code.qastaging.launchpad.net |
Description of the change
This MP implements new Jammy machine options that can be used to launch VMs using more than 288 vCPUs.
It's a simple patch because everything else needed to launch and use such VMs is already part of QEMU and the Linux kernel. There's an extensive discussion on bug #2012763 explaining all the investigation I did to confirm that.
PPA: https:/
Because QEMU always keeps retroactive definitions of machine types for previous Ubuntu releases, this patch will need to be "forwardported" to Mantic and Noble. Fortunately, no new machine types will be needed for Noble because its QEMU already supports launching VMS with more than 288 vCPUs out of the box. Mantic will need a new machine type, however.
There was an error fetching revisions from git servers. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, contact Launchpad support.
Guessing this is still WIP due to the description? Perhaps Status should set to the same for now?
One question is the changelog says this is for amd64, but the patch applies to qemu/hw/i386? Is that a mistake or intentional? May be something to mention in the dep3 text for the header when you get to that.