From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8CE41FF139 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:29:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 511CE66AE; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:30:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7c60c589-ff07-4777-81bf-05cec08bf378@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:30:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs] qm: pci passthrough: correct note about using 'softdep' To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20251219083102.623503-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <0d2e34b4-2ff0-43f4-959e-8ad74f56205c@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <0d2e34b4-2ff0-43f4-959e-8ad74f56205c@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1771932618108 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.033 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy 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 Message-ID-Hash: 5ZSF245266WIOFBK4BPMVNTXXQTJZVOY X-Message-ID-Hash: 5ZSF245266WIOFBK4BPMVNTXXQTJZVOY X-MailFrom: d.csapak@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2/24/26 12:27 PM, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 19.12.25 um 9:30 AM schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> In most cases with passthrough, the vfio-pci driver is preferred to what >> the kernel would normally load (e.g. amdgpu/nouveau), so 'softdep' can >> be used to make sure 'vfio-pci' is loaded before the actual module. >> >> This is expressed in our docs already with a sensible example, but the >> text is wrong, since it says 'load the gpu modules *before* loading >> vfio-pci'. >> >> So simply correct the 'before' to 'after'. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> qm-pci-passthrough.adoc | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/qm-pci-passthrough.adoc b/qm-pci-passthrough.adoc >> index 52b1d58..3520983 100644 >> --- a/qm-pci-passthrough.adoc >> +++ b/qm-pci-passthrough.adoc >> @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ xref:qm_pci_passthrough_update_initramfs[update the `initramfs`] again and >> reboot after that. >> >> Should this not work, you might need to set a soft dependency to load the gpu >> -modules before loading 'vfio-pci'. This can be done with the 'softdep' flag, see >> +modules after loading 'vfio-pci'. This can be done with the 'softdep' flag, see >> also the manpages on 'modprobe.d' for more information. >> >> For example, if you are using drivers named : > > Since the example uses "pre: vfio-pci", do you have any objection to > also formulate the sentence here to match this: > > "...soft dependency to load 'vfio-pci' before loading the GPU modules." > > ? yeah sure, makes sense, that was probably the source of the confusion here originally..