On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:28:58 +0200 Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 19:47 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:31:36 +0200 > > Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -Therefore, replacing the virtio-net device definition with the following XML > > > -snippet > > > - > > > -:: > > > - > > > - <interface type='bridge'> > > > - <source bridge='virbr0'/> > > > - <model type='virtio'/> > > > - <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x01' slot='0x07' function='0x3'> > > > - <zpci uid='0x0007' fid='0x00000003'/> > > > - </address> > > > - </interface> > > > - > > > -will yield the following result in a Linux guest: > > > - > > > -:: > > > - > > > - 0007:00:00.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device > > > > Hm, should that rather go somewhere else? What I wanted to show is "you > > can have the same PCI address in the XML and still get a different PCI > > address in the guest, if you change the zpci values", as that might be > > another source of confusion. > > I think the previous example, specifically the last bit where you > explain how changing the PCI address completely in the domain XML > would not change what the guest OS sees because the latter is derived > from uid and fid, already drives the point home. It's really two > sides of the same coin. > > Additionally, as I explained elsewhere, this document is not meant to > list every possible situation in which PCI addresses in the domain > XML and in the guest OS are out of sync, but merely to show that such > cases exist. It's valuable to mention the zPCI scenario, but we don't > need to show more than one variation of it in my opinion. > Fair enough. Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
