From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <w.bumiller@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 493189519F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:02:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 16663D929 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:01:50 +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>; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:01:48 +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 4893243639 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:01:47 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:01:46 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> To: Markus Frank <m.frank@proxmox.com> Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <20230117150146.5ouacpymvu7r6rhm@casey.proxmox.com> References: <20221125140857.121622-1-m.frank@proxmox.com> <20221125140857.121622-5-m.frank@proxmox.com> <20230113100929.ug2oivbml5tuizst@fwblub> <2585bfbd-2d44-5bef-1a0f-ca9e7e84b653@proxmox.com> <20230116100033.drlnujc5kpnhmltw@casey.proxmox.com> <e0097449-e389-86c9-c75a-4023b8172827@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <e0097449-e389-86c9-c75a-4023b8172827@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.208 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 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 docs v4 4/5] added vIOMMU documentation 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:02:20 -0000 On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Markus Frank wrote: > > > On 1/16/23 11:00, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 02:31:36PM +0100, Markus Frank wrote: > > > Moreover it adds an extra AMDVI-PCI device that is using the first pci address. > > > `kvm: -device VGA,id=vga,bus=pcie.0,addr=0x1: PCI: slot 1 function 0 not available for VGA, in use by AMDVI-PCI,id=(null)` > > > > For that I'd say, try to add the AMDVI-PCI device manually to an > > explicitly chosen slot. We need to avoid automatically added devices > > like the plague, because moving them later can break live snapshots (and > > windows). > > > I manually added a AMDVI-PCI device with a explicitly chosen slot but > amd-iommu still adds an extra AMDVI-PCI device. > I do not see any way to prevent this or to change the address > of the additionally added AMDVI-PCI device (from amd-iommu). > > I think amd-iommu is very impractical if we cannot set this slot manually. Okay, let's just not provide it for now.