Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/5] conf: Introduce viremulator_capabilities
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:03:51AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On 06/20/14 16:19, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> The virEmulatorCapabilities is going to hold emulator capabilities,
> surprisingly. It's intended to be able to cover qemuCaps, lxcCaps
> (once we invent them, if ever) and so on. Among with adding the code
> itself, both some documentation and basic testing is introduced too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
> ---
...
>
> diff --git a/docs/formatemulatorcaps.html.in b/docs/formatemulatorcaps.html.in
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..beea1a9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/docs/formatemulatorcaps.html.in
> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> + <body>
> + <h1>Emulator capabilities XML format</h1>
> +
> + <ul id="toc"></ul>
> +
> + <h2><a name="Motivation">Motivation</a></h2>
> +
> + <p>Sometimes, when a new domain is to be created it may come handy to
know
> + the capabilities of the hypervisor so the correct combination of devices and
> + drivers is used. For example, when management application is considering the
> + mode for a host device's passthrough there are several options depending
not
> + only on host, but on hypervisor in question too. If the hypervisor is qemu
> + then it needs to be more recent to support VFIO, while legacy KVM is
> + achievable just fine with older one.</p>
> +
> + <p>The main difference between <a
> + href="formatcaps.html">virConnectGetCapabilities</a> and
the emulator
> + capabilities API is, the former one aims more on the host capabilities (e.g.
> + NUMA topology, security models in effect, etc.) while the latter one
> + specializes on the hypervisor capabilities.</p>
> +
> + <h2><a name="elements">Element and attribute
overview</a></h2>
> +
> + <p>The root element that emulator capability XML document starts with
has
> + name <code>emulatorCapabilities</code>. It contains at least three
direct
> + child elements:</p>
We also have a <features> subelement of <guest> in the <capabilities>
XML which is used for a similar thing although it doesn't support a
per-machine-type output, only per-binary capabilities. Should we add
this more granular approach and abandon the old one?
Yes, we should stop adding stuff related to the guest to the main
<capabilities> XML since it doesn't scale.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|