Re: [PATCH libvirt v2 03/11] nodedev: detect AP queues

> diff --git a/docs/formatnode.html.in b/docs/formatnode.html.in > index d10a79e3..45281363 100644 > --- a/docs/formatnode.html.in > +++ b/docs/formatnode.html.in > @@ -439,6 +439,17 @@ > <dd>AP Card identifier.</dd> > </dl> > </dd> > + <dt><code>ap_queue</code></dt> > + <dd>Describes the AP Queue on a S390 host. An AP Queue is > + identified by it's ap-adapter and ap-domain id. "it's" should be "its". Is it worth a very brief description of what an AP queue actually is?

> > + <define name='capapqueue'> > + <attribute name='type'> > + <value>ap_queue</value> > + </attribute> > + <element name='ap-adapter'> > + <ref name='apAdapterRange'/> > + </element> > + <element name='ap-domain'> > + <ref name='apDomainRange'/> > + </element> > + </define> Let's use double quotes to keep the file consistent.

> + > <define name='address'> > <element name='address'> > <attribute name='domain'><ref name='hexuint'/></attribute> > @@ -738,4 +751,16 @@ > </choice> > </define> > > + <define name="apDomainRange"> > + <choice> > + <data type="string"> > + <param name="pattern">(0x)?[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}</param> > + </data> > + <data type="int"> > + <param name="minInclusive">0</param> > + <param name="maxInclusive">255</param> Is 255 correct here? the hex pattern above implies that it is a 16 bit value, but here you're limiting it to 255. If it is a 16 bit value, can we just use the already-defined 'uint16' type from basictypes.rng?

> diff --git a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c > b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c index b4eb4553..6bbff571 100644 > --- a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c > +++ b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c > @@ -1218,6 +1218,29 @@ udevProcessAPCard(struct udev_device *device, > } > > > +static int > +udevProcessAPQueue(struct udev_device *device, > + virNodeDeviceDefPtr def) > +{ > + char *c; > + virNodeDevCapDataPtr data = &def->caps->data; > + In the previous patch, you added a comment explaining the format of the sysfs path. I found that helpful. Without knowing the format, it's a bit difficult to judge whether this code below is correct.