From 96b1ea40321ab004a4835b31834b8a03cd817fd1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrea Bolognani Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:23:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] conf: Remove dubious code from virDomainPCIAddressSetGrow() 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 doing so is in any way a good idea is actively harmful. Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani Reviewed-by: John Ferlan --- src/conf/domain_addr.c | 9 --------- 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/conf/domain_addr.c b/src/conf/domain_addr.c index ca50dc70ce..8964973e03 100644 --- a/src/conf/domain_addr.c +++ b/src/conf/domain_addr.c @@ -477,15 +477,6 @@ virDomainPCIAddressSetGrow(virDomainPCIAddressSetPtr addrs, addr->bus++; } } - } else if (flags & VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE && - addrs->buses[0].model == VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCIE_ROOT) { - /* NB: if the root bus is pci-root, and we couldn't find an - * open place to connect a pci-bridge, then there is nothing - * we can do (since the only way to gain a new slot that - * accepts a pci-bridge is to add *a pci-bridge* (which is the - * reason we're here in the first place!) - */ - model = VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_DMI_TO_PCI_BRIDGE; } else if (flags & (VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCIE_DEVICE | VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCIE_SWITCH_UPSTREAM_PORT)) { model = VIR_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_MODEL_PCIE_ROOT_PORT; -- 2.39.5