Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] docs: formatdomain: Document the CPU feature 'name' attribute
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:35:20PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:31:16PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> Currently, the CPU feature 'name' XML attribute, as in:
[...]
> ---
> docs/formatdomain.html.in | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> index d272cc1ba..e717fb3aa 100644
> --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> @@ -1454,6 +1454,23 @@
>
> <span class="since">Since 0.8.5</span> the
<code>policy</code>
> attribute can be omitted and will default to
<code>require</code>.
> +
> + Individual CPU feature names can be specified as part of the
> + <code>name</code> attribute.
Isn't this "should" instead of "can"? Does it make sense to
have
a 'feature' element without a 'name' attribute?
Good catch. Near as I see, it doesn't. So I'll: s/can/should.
> The list of known CPU feature
> + names (e.g. 'vmx', 'cmt', et cetera) can be found in the
same
> + file as CPU models -- <code>cpu_map.xml</code>. For example,
> + to explicitly specify the 'pcid' feature with Intel IvyBridge
> + CPU model:
Another paragraph above already says "The list of known feature
names can be found in the same file as CPU models". If you think the
existing paragraph is not enough, I suggest rewriting it so the
document won't repeat exactly the same thing.
True. How about this rewrite:
"Once you choose a feature (e.g. 'pcid') from the `cpu_map.xml`, to
specify it explicitly with the Intel IvyBridge CPU model [...]"
I'll consider whether to also add a note that before specifying extra
CPU feature flags, one should check if the named CPU models provided by
libvirt already include the said flags.
[...]
--
/kashyap