Re: [libvirt] [PATCHv3 4/5] S390: Domain Schema for s390-virtio machines.

On 09.07.2012 14:33, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: > On 07/03/2012 06:18 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 29.06.2012 17:02, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: >>> Added s390-virtio machine type to the XML schema for domains in order >>> to not fail the domain schema tests. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski&lt;mihajlov(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; >>> --- >>> docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>> b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>> index 912a1a2..70c7d16 100644 >>> --- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>> +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>> @@ -283,6 +283,7 @@ >>> <ref name="hvmsparc"/> >>> <ref name="hvmppc"/> >>> <ref name="hvmppc64"/> >>> +<ref name="hvms390"/> >>> </choice> >>> </optional> >>> <value>hvm</value> >>> @@ -369,6 +370,25 @@ >>> </optional> >>> </group> >>> </define> >>> +<define name="hvms390"> >>> +<group> >>> +<optional> >>> +<attribute name="arch"> >>> +<choice> >>> +<value>s390</value> >>> +<value>s390x</value> >>> +</choice> >>> +</attribute> >>> +</optional> >>> +<optional> >>> +<attribute name="machine"> >>> +<choice> >>> +<value>s390-virtio</value> [1]^^ >>> +</choice> >>> +</attribute> >>> +</optional> >>> +</group> >>> +</define> >>> <define name="osexe"> >>> <element name="os"> >>> <element name="type"> >>> >> >> Sorry cannot ACK this one until you update the documentation as well. >> >> Michal >> > > Hi Michal, > > actually I was pondering about a doc update when preparing the patches. > I only wasn't clear where to put it. The only place where possible > arch/machine values are mentioned seems to be in formatcaps.html.in. > Would you expect me to add a sample output of the capabilities XML for > s390 with some comments in there, or did you have something else in mind? > > Thanks. > Actually, now I am going through docs I don't see a proper place neither. Moreover, in formatdomain.html.in we state: "The Capabilities XML provides details on allowed values for these" [these = @machine and @type] So as long as we report them in capabilities XML I guess we don't really need an doc extension. However, I think this [1] should be virtio-s390 instead of s390-virtio since we use the former among the code. What do you think? Michal