On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 16:54 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
> Also, would it be possible to make this feature of leaving
> free hot-pluggable slots opt-in?
>
> E.g. a without an index
> would be considered a port where we should not put devices
> with auto-assigned addresses.
>
> (This might actually
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:13:16PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 15:20 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
In the absense of anything configurable, we will need to pick a number
though. I've done that here, and now we can argue about it (or not :-)
Ján raised an interesting
On 10/14/2016 09:13 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 15:20 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
In the absense of anything configurable, we will need to pick a number
though. I've done that here, and now we can argue about it (or not :-)
Ján raised an interesting point: whatever number
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 15:20 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> In the absense of anything configurable, we will need to pick a number
> though. I've done that here, and now we can argue about it (or not :-)
Ján raised an interesting point: whatever number we choose,
no matter how wrong doing so is, some
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 15:20 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
> For machinetypes with a pci-root bus (all legacy PCI), libvirt will
> make a "fake" reservation for one extra slot prior to assigning
> addresses to unaddressed PCI endpoint devices in the domain. This will
> trigger auto-adding of a
