On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:15:41PM +0200, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com> writes:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:10:31PM +0200, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com> --- src/conf/domain_conf.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c index c25c74b..3bdf46a 100644 --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c @@ -342,7 +342,8 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainFS, VIR_DOMAIN_FS_TYPE_LAST, "file", "template", "ram", - "bind") + "bind", + "mtp")
I don't think this is the right way to represent it.
The 'type' attribute on <filesystem> represents where the backing store for the filesystem comes from.
The distinction of 9p vs mtp reflects the type of guest device to expose it as.
We shouldn't try to overload these two concepts in the same attribute. We should instead try to add a <device> or <model> child element as we have for some other device types.
I see, thanks for the clarification.
Would you agree with something like this?
<filesystem type='mount'> <device name="mtp share">mtp</device> ...
What is the name="mtp share" bit trying to reflect ? It seems we're mostly biased towards <model> so I think we should aim for <model type='mtp|9p'/> Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|