On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 12:29 +0200, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> I suggest to use the zpci addressing from the removed example because it
> outlines more clearly the differences in the parameters.
> Something like the example below:
>
> For s390x machines, PCI addresses are handled yet differently.
On 4/15/20 7:47 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:31:36 +0200
Andrea Bolognani wrote:
The idea behind this document is to show, with actual examples,
that users should not expect PCI addresses in the domain XML and
in the guest OS to match.
The first zPCI example already serves
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:28:58 +0200
Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 19:47 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:31:36 +0200
> > Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > > -Therefore, replacing the virtio-net device definition with the following
> > > XML
> > > -snippet
> >
On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 19:47 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:31:36 +0200
> Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > -Therefore, replacing the virtio-net device definition with the following
> > XML
> > -snippet
> > -
> > -::
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > -
> > - > function='0x3'>
>
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:31:36 +0200
Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> The idea behind this document is to show, with actual examples,
> that users should not expect PCI addresses in the domain XML and
> in the guest OS to match.
>
> The first zPCI example already serves this purpose perfectly, so
> in
The idea behind this document is to show, with actual examples,
that users should not expect PCI addresses in the domain XML and
in the guest OS to match.
The first zPCI example already serves this purpose perfectly, so
in the interest of keeping the page as brief and easy to digest
as possible
