> --- a/doc/libvirt-cim.html Thu Dec 06 11:06:38 2007 +0100 > +++ b/doc/libvirt-cim.html Thu Dec 06 11:06:39 2007 +0100 > @@ -300,6 +300,11 @@ below:</p> > #pragma include ("qualifiers.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("qualifiers_optional.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Core/CIM_ManagedElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_ManagedSystemElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_LogicalElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_EnabledLogicalElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_System.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("System/CIM_ComputerSystem.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Interop/CIM_RegisteredProfile.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Interop/CIM_RegisteredSubProfile.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Core/CIM_Dependency.mof")<br/> > > Looks syntactically sound. I don't recognize a couple of those classes as dual-namespace ones, but I'm not going to second guess our CIM Compliance Officer on that. :) +1

Heidi Eckhart wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User Heidi Eckhart <heidieck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; > # Date 1196935599 -3600 > # Node ID 30269254841ceed6a250ea2b714c594fa30cc19e > # Parent ba4bc35f508573c53e4303ce2e7a9b5299b95f38 > html: Added additional classes to cimv216-interop.mof > > These additional classes are necessary to register Xen/KVM > ComputerSystem and HostSystem classes to interop. Otherwise > Pegasus refuses the registration. > Signed-off-by: Heidi Eckhart <heidieck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; > > diff -r ba4bc35f5085 -r 30269254841c doc/libvirt-cim.html > --- a/doc/libvirt-cim.html Thu Dec 06 11:06:38 2007 +0100 > +++ b/doc/libvirt-cim.html Thu Dec 06 11:06:39 2007 +0100 > @@ -300,6 +300,11 @@ below:</p> > #pragma include ("qualifiers.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("qualifiers_optional.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Core/CIM_ManagedElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_ManagedSystemElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_LogicalElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_EnabledLogicalElement.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("Core/CIM_System.mof")<br/> > +#pragma include ("System/CIM_ComputerSystem.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Interop/CIM_RegisteredProfile.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Interop/CIM_RegisteredSubProfile.mof")<br/> > #pragma include ("Core/CIM_Dependency.mof")<br/> > > Looks syntactically sound. I don't recognize a couple of those classes as dual-namespace ones, but I'm not going to second guess our CIM Compliance Officer on that. :) +1