On Fri, 2018-04-06 at 14:23 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> So it turns out that once all of your patches are applied, the error is
> the same before or after this code is removed, so I think it may not be
> executed at all.
>
>
> Since it doesn't solve the issue it originally was intended to solve,
On 04/04/2018 04:54 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 22:44 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, if I remove that code (and don't apply any of your
>> patches) then a pure pcie domain *can* be successfully edited to add a
>> single pci-bridge (as long as you specify an
On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 22:44 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 04/03/2018 07:12 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
> > Since Laine added this code - perhaps calling his name out on the CC
> > list will allow him to appear and answer the question.
Fair point. I kinda just assumed Laine would be the only one
crazy^
On 04/03/2018 07:12 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
> On 03/28/2018 10:06 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>> 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
On 03/28/2018 10:06 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> 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 unsup
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 d
