On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:01:50PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Katerina Koukiou <kkoukiou@redhat.com> wrote:
Although the name of the element is not self-explanatory, it's affecting only the vcpu threads.
Signed-off-by: Katerina Koukiou <kkoukiou@redhat.com> --- docs/formatdomain.html.in | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in index 7fa448acdc..61930e4907 100644 --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in @@ -831,11 +831,11 @@ <dd> The optional <code>quota</code> element specifies the maximum allowed bandwidth(unit: microseconds). A domain with <code>quota</code> as any - negative value indicates that the domain has infinite bandwidth, which - means that it is not bandwidth controlled. The value should be in range - [1000, 18446744073709551] or less than 0. A quota with value 0 means no - value. You can use this feature to ensure that all vcpus run at the same - speed. + negative value indicates that the domain has infinite bandwidth for + VCPU threads, which means that it is not bandwidth controlled. The value
Just a nitpick here. I'd go for vCPU instead of VCPU.
I know both terms are used, it's just that vCPU seems to be used more often than VCPU: [ffidenci@pessoa libvirt]$ grep --color "vCPU" docs/formatdomain.html.in | wc -l 10 [ffidenci@pessoa libvirt]$ grep --color "VCPU" docs/formatdomain.html.in | wc -l 5
I'd follow up with an additional patch just to standardize the name for the most used one.
even "vcpu" would be fine, but I agree with Fabiano. If you adjust that, you have my Reviewed-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@redhat.com>