"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:10:31PM +0200, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>> index c25c74b..3bdf46a 100644
>> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>> @@ -342,7 +342,8 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainFS, VIR_DOMAIN_FS_TYPE_LAST,
>> "file",
>> "template",
>> "ram",
>> - "bind")
>> + "bind",
>> + "mtp")
>
> I don't think this is the right way to represent it.
>
> The 'type' attribute on <filesystem> represents where the backing store
> for the filesystem comes from.
>
> The distinction of 9p vs mtp reflects the type of guest device to expose
> it as.
>
> We shouldn't try to overload these two concepts in the same attribute.
> We should instead try to add a <device> or <model> child element as we
> have for some other device types.
I see, thanks for the clarification.
Would you agree with something like this?
<filesystem type='mount'>
<device name="mtp share">mtp</device>
...
Regards,
Giuseppe
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list