On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:20:57PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> A few products derive from xen-3.1.0 but we had no entry for the >> hypervisor till now. >> --- >> data/hypervisors/xen.xml.in | 17 ++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/data/hypervisors/xen.xml.in b/data/hypervisors/xen.xml.in >> index 98efefb..be23796 100644 >> --- a/data/hypervisors/xen.xml.in >> +++ b/data/hypervisors/xen.xml.in >> @@ -43,12 +43,27 @@ >> </devices> >> </platform> >> >> + <platform id="http://xen.org/xen/3.1.0";> >> + <short-id>xen-3.1.0</short-id> >> + <_name>Xen 3.1.0</_name> >> + <_vendor>Citrix Systems, Inc.</_vendor> >> + <version>3.1.0</version> >> + <upgrades id="http://xen.org/xen/3.0.4"/> >> + >> + <devices> >> + <device id="http://xen.org/devices/block"/> >> + <device id="http://xen.org/devices/net"/> >> + <device id="http://xen.org/devices/console"/> >> + <device id="http://xen.org/devices/framebuffer"/> >> + </devices> >> + </platform> >> + > > Iirc the devices are inherited so we don't need to have them with every > entry (they were present already in older xen entries). > ACK. Are they? Are you sure? It is a bit weird to me, just thinking that devices can become obsoletes and as they are inherited we can end up having really old/not supported anymore devices from the very first versions. If they really are, I'll go for this patch as it is for now and then clean up the possible duplicated entries in the rest of the project. > > Christophe > > _______________________________________________ > Libosinfo mailing list > Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo > Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
