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 :|