On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:46:27PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:40 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> --- docs/formatdomain.html.in | 7 +++- docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 5 +++ src/conf/cpu_conf.c | 25 +++++++++++- src/conf/cpu_conf.h | 7 ++-- .../qemuxml2argv-cpu-numa-memshared.xml | 28 ++++++++++++++ .../qemuxml2argv-hugepages-shared.xml | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/qemuxml2xmltest.c | 2 + 7 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-cpu-numa-memshared.xml create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-hugepages-shared.xml
diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in index 94236dd..b284d6e 100644 --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in @@ -1105,7 +1105,7 @@ ... <numa> <cell id='0' cpus='0-3' memory='512000'/> - <cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='512000'/> + <cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='512000' memShared='on'/>
I wonder if "shared='on'" would be enough, avoiding the need for a multi-word attribute.
Or how about access="shared|private" ?
I prepended the "mem" so that it is visible that it has something to do with the memory, not the whole node. But I'm OK with pushing shared= as well. Using access= seems too ambiguously worded to me, although if most of you agree... Martin