On 15.01.2015 13:11, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 11:58 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 15.01.2015 10:25, Cédric Bosdonnat wrote: >>> Moving network route to the network common schema will allow reusing it. >>> --- >>> docs/schemas/network.rng | 20 +------------------- >>> docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/docs/schemas/network.rng b/docs/schemas/network.rng >>> index 9a7d156..63d81c1 100644 >>> --- a/docs/schemas/network.rng >>> +++ b/docs/schemas/network.rng >>> @@ -371,25 +371,7 @@ >>> </zeroOrMore> >>> <!-- <route> element --> >>> <zeroOrMore> >>> - <!-- The (static) route element specifies a network address and gateway >>> - address to access that network. Both the network address and >>> - the gateway address must be specified. --> >>> - <element name="route"> >>> - <optional> >>> - <attribute name="family"><ref name="addr-family"/></attribute> >>> - </optional> >>> - <attribute name="address"><ref name="ipAddr"/></attribute> >>> - <optional> >>> - <choice> >>> - <attribute name="netmask"><ref name="ipv4Addr"/></attribute> >>> - <attribute name="prefix"><ref name="ipPrefix"/></attribute> >>> - </choice> >>> - </optional> >>> - <attribute name="gateway"><ref name="ipAddr"/></attribute> >>> - <optional> >>> - <attribute name="metric"><ref name="unsignedInt"/></attribute> >>> - </optional> >>> - </element> >>> + <ref name="routex"/> >>> </zeroOrMore> >>> </interleave> >>> </element> >>> diff --git a/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng b/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng >>> index e26b7f3..cbcae91 100644 >>> --- a/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng >>> +++ b/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng >>> @@ -224,4 +224,26 @@ >>> <param name='maxInclusive'>65535</param> >>> </data> >>> </define> >>> + >>> + <!-- The (static) route element specifies a network address and gateway >>> + address to access that network. Both the network address and >>> + the gateway address must be specified. --> >>> + <define name='routex'> >> >> routex? That's an odd name. However, looking into the future at 4/7 I >> can see why yo need to do it this way. > > Such a name was proposed by Laine to avoid the definition conflict when > moving to networkcommon.rng. May be a better name could still be > appreciated, even for a temporary renaming. > No need for that. It's just that I was curious when I first saw it. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list