On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:08:58PM -0400, Alvin Starr wrote:
---
docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 10 ++++++++++
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 6 ++++++
src/conf/domain_conf.h | 2 ++
src/libxl/libxl_conf.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
index f196177..402ff16 100644
--- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
+++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
@@ -4083,6 +4083,16 @@
</element>
</optional>
<optional>
+ <element name="nestedhvm">
+ <empty/>
+ </element>
+ </optional>
+ <optional>
+ <element name="mask_svm_npt">
+ <empty/>
+ </element>
+ </optional>
+ <optional>
<ref name="hyperv"/>
</optional>
<optional>
We really shouldn't be adding new schema for this. We should just
toggle enablement of nested SVM/VMX based on whether the <cpu>
model includes the <svm/> or <vmx/> feature flags. This is what
we already do on KVM for enabling this feature, and we'd want
Xen to work the same way IMHO.
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 :|