Package Details: linux-vfio 6.12.5-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/linux-vfio.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: linux-vfio
Description: The Linux kernel and modules (ACS override and i915 VGA arbiter patches)
Upstream URL: https://www.kernel.org
Keywords: acs arbiter assignment gpu i915 kvm override passthrough pci qemu vfio vga
Licenses: GPL-2.0-or-later
Provides: KSMBD-MODULE, VIRTUALBOX-GUEST-MODULES, WIREGUARD-MODULE
Submitter: zman0900
Maintainer: xiota
Last Packager: xiota
Votes: 73
Popularity: 0.000154
First Submitted: 2015-01-30 06:41 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-12-18 23:01 (UTC)

Dependencies (19)

Required by (6)

Sources (7)

Pinned Comments

xiota commented on 2024-01-09 18:43 (UTC) (edited on 2024-01-11 16:53 (UTC) by xiota)

  • Leaving eclairvoyant's comment pinned because it contains some useful information.
  • Patch policy is different, but similar.
    • Primary purpose of this package are the ACS override and i915 VGA arbiter patches.
    • Upstream Arch patches will be applied to maintain parity with the standard kernel.
    • No other patches will be added.
  • Package does have options that can be changed, like building with clang or disabling Arch patches.
    • Defaults will match Arch packages, except when incompatible with this package's primary patches.
    • Options are subject to change. Read PKGBUILD for details.
  • Avoid commenting and flagging at the same time for the same issue.
    • Flag for common issues with standard solutions, like new releases, key changes, etc.
    • Comment for issues requiring explanation or debugging.
      • Use a pastebin for blocks of text more than a few lines.

eclairevoyant commented on 2023-04-06 21:24 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-06 21:31 (UTC) by eclairevoyant)

This package exists for the specific purpose of adding ported patches based on those originally created by Alex Williamson for:

Arbitrary patches will not be added.

Refer to the wiki on PCI passthrough and this blog post on IOMMU groups for risks/caveats before using this package.

Regular AUR etiquette applies as well (knowledge of makepkg and searching the wiki/Arch forums is expected, and AUR helpers or Arch-based distros that are not Arch Linux are unsupported).

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .. 32 Next › Last »

MurkyDepths commented on 2018-08-30 15:42 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm like maybe day one on arch so I have little to no idea how AUR works properly. Though I'm learning, it doesn't stop me from being stupid.

markzz commented on 2018-08-30 14:59 (UTC)

The answer to that question is always "When it's done."

Also, seeing as this PKGBUILD is on 4.18.4 right now tells you something about your question...

MurkyDepths commented on 2018-08-30 14:23 (UTC) (edited on 2018-08-30 14:31 (UTC) by MurkyDepths)

Is the patch available to 4.18.*? If it isn't, how long do you think it'll be until it's updated?

markzz commented on 2018-08-25 19:24 (UTC)

jugs: Usually that's the case, but this time I'm just being slow.

jugs commented on 2018-08-25 00:12 (UTC)

Does the patch not work on 4.18?

codekoala commented on 2018-08-13 16:30 (UTC)

Looks like recompiling this package did the trick for me.

codekoala commented on 2018-08-13 15:33 (UTC)

I'm having problems with nvidia-dkms and this package:

==> dkms install nvidia/396.24 -k 4.17.3-1-vfio Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 4.17.3-1-vfio (x86_64) Consult /var/lib/dkms/nvidia/396.24/build/make.log for more information.

I'm not sure when the problems started happening, but it's probably started within the last week. Anyone else having issues with nvidia drivers failing to install for this kernel lately?

I'm trying to get operational again by trying combinations of different kernel and nvidia versions. Still no luck yet.

markzz commented on 2018-06-09 15:59 (UTC)

DocMAX: That line appears to be doing a job. Removing it would make me feel uneasy and without further information, I will not remove it.

You are free to do so when you build it though. The details of that reddit post also show that the person was using an Atom/Pentium/Celeron with a possible ACS cap and that line should absolutely not be removed.

If you want to discuss it with me further, I'd recommend turning to email and contacting me directly, especially if you have more information that will change my mind.

DocMAX commented on 2018-06-09 15:26 (UTC)

Could you remove the line described here?:

https://www.reddit.com/r/VFIO/comments/63j1p7/any_ideas_why_all_pcie_ports_are_assigned_to_the/?st=ji7jr7e9&sh=a6f321b2

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .. 32 Next › Last »