Libvirt NVME support

Hi, We wanted to check if it’s possible to specify a disk’s target as nvme (so that the disk shows up as a nvme disk to the guest VM). Per libvirt documentation it looks like (since Libvirt 6.0.0) we can specify the disk type as nvme and disks source as a nvme. But the documentation does not say anything about being specify the disk’s target as nvme. Is it possible to present the disk to the guest as a nvme disk, if so how? Example from Libvirt documentation (https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html) ----- <disk type='nvme' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/> <source type='pci' managed='yes' namespace='1'> <address domain='0x0000' bus='0x01' slot='0x00' function='0x0'/> </source> <target dev='vde' bus='virtio'/> </disk> ----- But we want to do something similar to the following: two vNVMe controllers where the first one has one namespace and the second one has two namespaces ----- # first NVMe controller, one namespace <disk type='network' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/> <source protocol='iscsi' name='iqn.2013-07.com.example:iscsi-nopool/123'> <host name='example.com' port='3260'/> <auth username='myuser'> <secret type='iscsi' usage='libvirtiscsi'/> </auth> </source> <target dev='nvme0' bus='nvme'/> </disk> # second NVMe controller, first namespace <disk type='network' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/> <source protocol='iscsi' name='iqn.2013-07.com.example:iscsi-nopool/456'> <host name='example.com' port='3260'/> <auth username='myuser'> <secret type='iscsi' usage='libvirtiscsi'/> </auth> </source> <target dev='nvme1' namespace='1' bus='nvme'/> </disk> # second NVMe controller, first namespace <disk type='network' device='disk'> <driver name='qemu' type='raw'/> <source protocol='iscsi' name='iqn.2013-07.com.example:iscsi-nopool/789'> <host name='example.com' port='3260'/> <auth username='myuser'> <secret type='iscsi' usage='libvirtiscsi'/> </auth> </source> <target dev='nvme1' namespace='2' bus='nvme'/> </disk> ----- If in case this is not yet supported, would it be merged if we were to implement it? Thanks, Suraj