I haven't been able to come up with a single scenario in which
the code in question would be executed; even if there was one,
it would be due to the user specifying a *partial* PCI topology
in the guest XML, which is of course entirely unsupportable and
thus providing even the slightest hint that doing so is in any
way a good idea is actively harmful.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
src/conf/domain_addr.c | 9 ---------
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_addr.c b/src/conf/domain_addr.c
index 0c914fe25c..18b6f8d588 100644
--- a/src/conf/domain_addr.c
+++ b/src/conf/domain_addr.c
@@ -447,15 +447,6 @@ virDomainPCIAddressSetGrow(virDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs,
addr->bus++;
}
}
- } else if (flags & VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE &&
- addrs->buses[0].model == VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCIE_ROOT) {
- /* NB: if the root bus is pci-root, and we couldn't find an
- * open place to connect a pci-bridge, then there is nothing
- * we can do (since the only way to gain a new slot that
- * accepts a pci-bridge is to add *a pci-bridge* (which is the
- * reason we're here in the first place!)
- */
- model = VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_DMI_TO_PCI_BRIDGE;
} else if (flags & (VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCIE_DEVICE |
VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCIE_SWITCH_UPSTREAM_PORT)) {
model = VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCIE_ROOT_PORT;
--
2.14.3
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
