Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] Cleanup diskSourceNetwork and diskSourceFile schema

On 21/04/22 8:29 pm, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 10:48:47 -0700, Rohit Kumar wrote: > > Moving diskSourceNetwork and diskSourceFile's Source definition > > under 'define' element, so that it will be easier to reuse it > > at multiple places. > > > > Signed-off-by: Prerna Saxena <prerna.saxena(a)nutanix.com&gt; > > Signed-off-by: Florian Schmidt <flosch(a)nutanix.com&gt; > > Signed-off-by: Rohit Kumar <rohit.kumar3(a)nutanix.com&gt; > > --- > > src/conf/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 60 +++++++++++++++++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/conf/schemas/domaincommon.rng b/src/conf/schemas/domaincommon.rng > > index c0c14fe558..58eb9670d4 100644 > > --- a/src/conf/schemas/domaincommon.rng > > +++ b/src/conf/schemas/domaincommon.rng

> > + </attribute> > > + </optional> > > + <ref name="diskSourceCommon"/> > > + <optional> > > + <ref name="storageStartupPolicy"/> > > + </optional> > Startup policy definitely makes no sense for the nvram. Should this be removed after parsing as well, If we are not mentioning these in schema defination ? Should we report error if user provides startup policy, encryption or security labels  ? > > > + <optional> > > + <ref name="encryption"/> > Due to the way how the 'pflash1' storage source is initialized > encryption is NOT yet supported. > > You'll also need to reject it after parsing. Right. I did not understand what does rejecting it meaning here. Is it reporting error like encryption is not supported ? or is it just deallocating 'Auth' field from virStorageSource after parsing ?

> > > + </optional> > > + <zeroOrMore> > > + <ref name="devSeclabel"/> > I don't think the code is wired up to actually handle seclabels even if > the parser parses them. Right. I will remove it from schema defination. Thanks!