On 08/05/2014 04:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/05/2014 01:59 PM, John Ferlan wrote: > >> Both are 'scsi' adapters - existing is 'scsi_host' and the new one is 'iscsi'. >> I'm unsure about putting the 'optional' attribute name really does. Not to >> confuse things further, but the next step in the evolution of this is to add >> a fiber channel adapter (eg, fc_host). >> >> The "first" format is for the "scsi_host" with the valid XML being: > > Seeing it in context helps. > >> >> <hostdev mode='subsystem' type='scsi'> >> <source> >> <adapter name='scsi_host0'/> > > Here, I think I see the solution to my earlier confusion. If _this_ > were written: > > <source protocol='adapter'> > <adapter... > > where the protocol='adapter' is optional (default, for back-compat), > then you know that <source>'s children will be <adapter> and <address>... > >> <address type='scsi' bus='0' target='0' unit='0'/> >> </source> >> <readonly/> >> <address type='drive' controller='0' bus='0' target='0' unit='0'/> >> </hostdev> >> >> >> The "second" format is for the "iscsi" valid XML for 'iscsi' is: >> >> <hostdev mode='subsystem' type='scsi'> >> <source protocol='iscsi' name='iqn.2014-08.com.example:iscsi-nopool/1'> > > ...and here, protocol='iscsi' is mandatory, to describe that that > <source>'s children will be <host>. > >> <host name='example.com' port='3260'/> >> </source> >> <auth username='myuser'> >> <secret type='iscsi' usage='libvirtiscsi'/> >> </auth> > > Is the <auth> something inherent to the overall hostdev, or something > only to the <source protocol='iscsi'>? I think I'd rather see this > <auth> be a child of <source>, rather than a sibling. > OK - I'll 'repost' v3 2/3... This could also make adding adapter=fc_host a bit simpler. Moving <auth> under <source> is more like storage pool syntax which is fine - I guess I was trying to as much like the <disk> as I could be. John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list