On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 06:18:14PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > On 07/23/2013 11:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > I'm thinking that it would probably be better to move all the re-indented > > code out into a qemuValidateDevicePCISlotsPIIX3() and just call that > > function from qemuAssignDevicePCISlots(). That way if we need to add > > more validation for other machine types in the future, we have a good > > modular code structure. This would probably make the diff more sane > > too, since you wouldn't be indenting code. > > Ah yes, good idea! I'll do that and resend. > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:44:52AM -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > > > (Note that, according to the qemuxml2argv-pseries-usb-multi test, ppc > > "pseries" machines also have a PIIX3 chip (since that test file adds a > > "piix3-uhci" usb controller). I don't know if this is really the case > > or not, but had to include that machine type in the checks in order > > for make check to succeed with no changes to the test data.) > > Anyone have better information about this? Does the pseries really have > a PIIX3? Or was that just an arbitrary entry added for a test case? Looking at QEMU's GIT hw/ppc/* I see no reference to piix at all. It is only referenced in hw/i386/*. So I think the test case is bogus Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list