On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:51:53PM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313314 Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- docs/formatdomain.html.in | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in index c54b308..df8c06c 100644 --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in @@ -4507,10 +4507,10 @@ qemu-kvm -net nic,model=? /dev/null <p> If no target is specified, certain hypervisors will automatically generate a name for the created tun device. This - name can be manually specified, however the name <i>must not + name can be manually specified, however the name <i>should not start with either 'vnet' or 'vif'</i>, which are prefixes reserved by libvirt and certain hypervisors. Manually specified - targets using these prefixes will be ignored. + targets using these prefixes may be ignored. </p>
That sounds very arbitrary, could we instead say that 'vnet' will be ignored and libxl will also ignore 'vif'? I know it bounds us to that, but when would we change that in the future and why? Also the wording htat's there right now seems quite fine. Maybe we could say vnet will be ignored as well as some other per-hypervisor prefixes and the user is advised to check what the result is. Or we can just go the nicest way nad say that 'vnet' prefix will be ignored as well as the host's prefix which can be obtained in host capabilities. That's as precise as you can get and we'll conform to that even if some new hypervisor chooses some new prefix to go with.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list