On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 15:49:07 -0600, Ryan Gahagan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 8:24 AM Peter Krempa
<pkrempa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 15:21:25 -0600, Ryan Gahagan wrote:
> > + <define name="diskSourceNetworkProtocolNFS">
> > + <element name="source">
> > + <interleave>
> > + <attribute name="protocol">
> > + <choice>
> > + <value>nfs</value>
> > + </choice>
> > + </attribute>
> > + <attribute name="name"/>
> > + <ref name="diskSourceCommon"/>
> > + <ref name="diskSourceNetworkHost"/>
>
> This allows also 'port' and non TCP transports. It's okay to simplify
> the schema though and use the generic type. The code will need to reject
> those when we'll validate whether the disk is possible to represent for
> qemu.
>
Just to be 100% clear, does this mean we can leave the
diskSourceNetworkProtocolNFS element definition as is and simply enforce
the port omission/tcp transport in the code? Or would you prefer that we
re-write the schema to use a custom variety of the diskSourceNetworkHost
which only supports tcp and has no port option?
Yes, our schema doesn't cover all edge cases so we can use it here.