On 09.07.2012 14:33, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
On 07/03/2012 06:18 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 29.06.2012 17:02, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
>> Added s390-virtio machine type to the XML schema for domains in order
>> to not fail the domain schema tests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski<mihajlov(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
>> b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
>> index 912a1a2..70c7d16 100644
>> --- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
>> +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
>> @@ -283,6 +283,7 @@
>> <ref name="hvmsparc"/>
>> <ref name="hvmppc"/>
>> <ref name="hvmppc64"/>
>> +<ref name="hvms390"/>
>> </choice>
>> </optional>
>> <value>hvm</value>
>> @@ -369,6 +370,25 @@
>> </optional>
>> </group>
>> </define>
>> +<define name="hvms390">
>> +<group>
>> +<optional>
>> +<attribute name="arch">
>> +<choice>
>> +<value>s390</value>
>> +<value>s390x</value>
>> +</choice>
>> +</attribute>
>> +</optional>
>> +<optional>
>> +<attribute name="machine">
>> +<choice>
>> +<value>s390-virtio</value>
[1]^^
>> +</choice>
>> +</attribute>
>> +</optional>
>> +</group>
>> +</define>
>> <define name="osexe">
>> <element name="os">
>> <element name="type">
>>
>
> Sorry cannot ACK this one until you update the documentation as well.
>
> Michal
>
Hi Michal,
actually I was pondering about a doc update when preparing the patches.
I only wasn't clear where to put it. The only place where possible
arch/machine values are mentioned seems to be in formatcaps.html.in.
Would you expect me to add a sample output of the capabilities XML for
s390 with some comments in there, or did you have something else in mind?
Thanks.
Actually, now I am going through docs I don't see a proper place
neither. Moreover, in formatdomain.html.in we state: "The Capabilities
XML provides details on allowed values for these" [these = @machine and
@type] So as long as we report them in capabilities XML I guess we don't
really need an doc extension.
However, I think this [1] should be virtio-s390 instead of s390-virtio
since we use the former among the code.
What do you think?
Michal