On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 05:42:47PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 01:26:38PM +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
The original text was not explaining what this attribute actually controls and could have been interpreted as a control switch for the Secure boot feature in firmwares.
Yep, I've indeed seen people misread it as such.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@redhat.com> --- docs/formatdomain.rst | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.rst b/docs/formatdomain.rst index a2ea2690a5..c101d5a1f1 100644 --- a/docs/formatdomain.rst +++ b/docs/formatdomain.rst @@ -167,7 +167,9 @@ harddisk, cdrom, network) determining where to obtain/find the boot image. in the guest memory the file should be mapped. For instance, if the loader path points to an UEFI image, ``type`` should be ``pflash``. Moreover, some firmwares may implement the Secure boot feature. Attribute ``secure`` can be - used then to control it. :since:`Since 2.1.0` + used to tell the hypervisor that the firmware implements Secure Boot Feature.
s/Feature/feature/
Perhaps: "firmware is capable of Secure Boot feature"
Sounds reasonable, will change it.
+ It cannot be used to enable or disable the feature itself in the firmware. + :since:`Since 2.1.0`
This additional clarification is good.
(Nit-pick: not this patch's fault: consistently use "Secure Boot"; I see both "Secure boot" and "Secure Boot".)
If you check our documentation we lack consistency almost everywhere :) until this is enforced by some check it will happen all the time.
Address the above only if you're respinning. FWIW:
Reviewed-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
Thanks, I need to do some other changes to the series before pushing so I'll apply this suggestions as well before pushing. Pavel