>
> diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> index 836aed5..038776a 100644
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> @@ -2310,12 +2310,16 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
> PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn &&
> rmrr->scope.devices_cnt > 1 )
> {
> + u32 relaxed = flag & XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED;
> +
> printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX
> - " cannot assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
> + " Currently its %s to assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
> " with shared RMRR at %"PRIx64" for Dom%d.\n",
> + relaxed ? "disallowed" : "risky",
>
This debug message is backwards?
> seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
> rmrr->base_address, d->domain_id);
> - return -EPERM;
> + if ( !relaxed )
> + return -EPERM;
> }
> }
>
>
> Tamas, do you actually mean to assign these to _different_
>>> guests, considering the log fragment above?)
>>>
>>>
>> No, I actually want to assign them to the same domain. The domain creation
>> fails with either of those devices specified for passthrough whether they
>> are to be attached to the same domain or not.
>>
>>
> Tamas, could you try this in your case?
>
Took me a while to find the xl config option to set this flag (pci = [
'sbdf, rdm_policy=strict/relaxed' ]) but now it works as expected!
Thanks,
Tamas
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
