Re: [libvirt] [PATCHv2 2/7] Move network route definition to networkcommon.rng

On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 11:58 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 15.01.2015 10:25, Cédric Bosdonnat wrote: >> Moving network route to the network common schema will allow reusing it. >> --- >> docs/schemas/network.rng | 20 +------------------- >> docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/docs/schemas/network.rng b/docs/schemas/network.rng >> index 9a7d156..63d81c1 100644 >> --- a/docs/schemas/network.rng >> +++ b/docs/schemas/network.rng >> @@ -371,25 +371,7 @@ >> </zeroOrMore> >> <!-- <route> element --> >> <zeroOrMore> >> - <!-- The (static) route element specifies a network address and gateway >> - address to access that network. Both the network address and >> - the gateway address must be specified. --> >> - <element name="route"> >> - <optional> >> - <attribute name="family"><ref name="addr-family"/></attribute> >> - </optional> >> - <attribute name="address"><ref name="ipAddr"/></attribute> >> - <optional> >> - <choice> >> - <attribute name="netmask"><ref name="ipv4Addr"/></attribute> >> - <attribute name="prefix"><ref name="ipPrefix"/></attribute> >> - </choice> >> - </optional> >> - <attribute name="gateway"><ref name="ipAddr"/></attribute> >> - <optional> >> - <attribute name="metric"><ref name="unsignedInt"/></attribute> >> - </optional> >> - </element> >> + <ref name="routex"/> >> </zeroOrMore> >> </interleave> >> </element> >> diff --git a/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng b/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng >> index e26b7f3..cbcae91 100644 >> --- a/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng >> +++ b/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng >> @@ -224,4 +224,26 @@ >> <param name='maxInclusive'>65535</param> >> </data> >> </define> >> + >> + <!-- The (static) route element specifies a network address and gateway >> + address to access that network. Both the network address and >> + the gateway address must be specified. --> >> + <define name='routex'> > > routex? That's an odd name. However, looking into the future at 4/7 I > can see why yo need to do it this way. Such a name was proposed by Laine to avoid the definition conflict when moving to networkcommon.rng. May be a better name could still be appreciated, even for a temporary renaming.