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 E9C9772EA8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:34:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D8CC4189C3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:34:45 +0200 (CEST) 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 id 8E0D1189B8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:34:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5D2CD4414C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:34:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5a57f862-fc4f-aafa-8eeb-435121e9e718@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:34:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/90.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20210413082414.32241-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <5db28421-5f41-2a73-53a6-70e0b9f1136d@proxmox.com> <769788e7-9ba0-07fb-6304-985c9d67b827@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <769788e7-9ba0-07fb-6304-985c9d67b827@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.935 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 -0.17 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] applied: [RFC qemu-server] avoid setting lun number for drives when pvscsi controller is used 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: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:34:46 -0000 On 17.06.21 09:29, Stefan Reiter wrote: > On 16/06/2021 20:27, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 13.04.21 10:24, Fabian Ebner wrote: >>> Reported in the community forum[0]. >>> >>> In QEMU's hw/scsi/vmw_pvscsi.c in the SCSIBusInfo struct, the max_lun= property >>> is set to 0. This means that in our stack, one cannot have multiple d= isks and >>> use 'scsihw: pvscsi' currently, as kvm would fail with >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 bad scsi device lun: 1 >>> >>> Instead of increasing the lun number, increase the scsi-id, as we alr= eady do for >>> lsi.* (in hw/scsi/lsi53c895a.c the max_lun property is also 0). >>> >>> [0]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/kvm-bad-scsi-device-lun-1.8431= 8/ >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> >>> --- >>> >>> I'm not experienced in this area, so not at all sure if this is the p= roper >>> solution/workaround. >>> >>> =C2=A0 PVE/QemuServer.pm | 2 +- >>> =C2=A0 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> >> >> applied, with Stefans R-b/T-b tag, thanks to both! >> >> just to be sure: I assume that migration from old -> new is OK and was= tested? >> >=20 > Yes, VMs with one pvscsi disk can be migrated forward, and ones with mu= ltiple (where it might have caused incompatibility) didn't work to begin = with. Ack, thanks for the confirmation.