On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:31:16PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
Currently, the CPU feature 'name' XML attribute, as in:
[...]
<cpu match='exact'>
<model fallback='forbid'>IvyBridge</model>
<vendor>Intel</vendor>
<feature policy='require' name='pcid'/>
</cpu>
[...]
isn't explicitly documented in formatdomain.html.
Document it now.
Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart(a)redhat.com>
---
docs/formatdomain.html.in | 17 +++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
index d272cc1ba..e717fb3aa 100644
--- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in
+++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
@@ -1454,6 +1454,23 @@
<span class="since">Since 0.8.5</span> the
<code>policy</code>
attribute can be omitted and will default to <code>require</code>.
+
+ Individual CPU feature names can be specified as part of the
+ <code>name</code> attribute.
Isn't this "should" instead of "can"? Does it make sense to have
a 'feature' element without a 'name' attribute?
The list of known CPU feature
+ names (e.g. 'vmx', 'cmt', et cetera) can be found in the same
+ file as CPU models -- <code>cpu_map.xml</code>. For example,
+ to explicitly specify the 'pcid' feature with Intel IvyBridge
+ CPU model:
Another paragraph above already says "The list of known feature
names can be found in the same file as CPU models". If you think
the existing paragraph is not enough, I suggest rewriting it so
the document won't repeat exactly the same thing.
+
+<pre>
+...
+<cpu match='exact'>
+ <model fallback='forbid'>IvyBridge</model>
+ <vendor>Intel</vendor>
+ <feature policy='require' name='pcid'/>
+</cpu>
+...</pre>
+
</dd>
<dt><code>cache</code></dt>
--
2.13.6
--
Eduardo