On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 16:16 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
My reasoning was to try and organize them the way we already do with <kvm> and <hyperv> capabilities - even though pSeries is not a hypervisor per se, you can kinda see sPAPR as a specification implemented by various hypervisors, like PowerVM and in our case QEMU/KVM. But if you think this effort is misguided and they belong to the top-level <features> element, then I'm okay with that too.
I guess where the nesting makes sense is if there's a chance of having namespace collision between features. eg if both kvm and hyperv had a feature called "pvspinlocks", you might want to enable them separately, so the nesting is important there.
Mh, I don't foresee that kind of collision happening. We should be safe; and if it ever turns out not to be the case, then we can just nest the new features instead. I'll respin a simpler version of this. Thanks for the feedback :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization