[libvirt PATCH 4/4] docs: Remove one example from pci-addresses.rst

[Cornelia Huck]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 09:28:58 +0200
Andrea Bolognani <abologna at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 19:47 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 19:31:36 +0200
> > Andrea Bolognani <abologna at redhat.com> wrote:  
> > > -Therefore, replacing the virtio-net device definition with the following XML
> > > -snippet
> > > -
> > > -::
> > > -
> > > -  <interface type='bridge'>
> > > -    <source bridge='virbr0'/>
> > > -    <model type='virtio'/>
> > > -    <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x01' slot='0x07' function='0x3'>
> > > -      <zpci uid='0x0007' fid='0x00000003'/>
> > > -    </address>
> > > -  </interface>
> > > -
> > > -will yield the following result in a Linux guest:
> > > -
> > > -::
> > > -
> > > -  0007:00:00.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device  
> > 
> > Hm, should that rather go somewhere else? What I wanted to show is "you
> > can have the same PCI address in the XML and still get a different PCI
> > address in the guest, if you change the zpci values", as that might be
> > another source of confusion.  
> 
> I think the previous example, specifically the last bit where you
> explain how changing the PCI address completely in the domain XML
> would not change what the guest OS sees because the latter is derived
> from uid and fid, already drives the point home. It's really two
> sides of the same coin.
> 
> Additionally, as I explained elsewhere, this document is not meant to
> list every possible situation in which PCI addresses in the domain
> XML and in the guest OS are out of sync, but merely to show that such
> cases exist. It's valuable to mention the zPCI scenario, but we don't
> need to show more than one variation of it in my opinion.
> 

Fair enough.

Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck at redhat.com>