From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <s.reiter@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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 718D372E52 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:30:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5D150188C3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:29:56 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 1E3D4188B4 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:29:52 +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 E49AB4414C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:29:51 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20210413082414.32241-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <5db28421-5f41-2a73-53a6-70e0b9f1136d@proxmox.com> From: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <769788e7-9ba0-07fb-6304-985c9d67b827@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:29:50 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5db28421-5f41-2a73-53a6-70e0b9f1136d@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.861 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 07:30:26 -0000 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 disks and >> use 'scsihw: pvscsi' currently, as kvm would fail with >> bad scsi device lun: 1 >> >> Instead of increasing the lun number, increase the scsi-id, as we already 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-1.84318/ >> >> 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 proper >> solution/workaround. >> >> PVE/QemuServer.pm | 2 +- >> 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? > Yes, VMs with one pvscsi disk can be migrated forward, and ones with multiple (where it might have caused incompatibility) didn't work to begin with. > > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel > >