On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:31:16PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > Currently, the CPU feature 'name' XML attribute, as in: > > [...] > <cpu match='exact'> > <model fallback='forbid'>IvyBridge</model> > <vendor>Intel</vendor> > <feature policy='require' name='pcid'/> > </cpu> > [...] > > isn't explicitly documented in formatdomain.html. > > Document it now. > > Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > docs/formatdomain.html.in | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in > index d272cc1ba..e717fb3aa 100644 > --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in > +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in > @@ -1454,6 +1454,23 @@ > > <span class="since">Since 0.8.5</span> the <code>policy</code> > attribute can be omitted and will default to <code>require</code>. > + > + Individual CPU feature names can be specified as part of the > + <code>name</code> attribute. Isn't this "should" instead of "can"? Does it make sense to have a 'feature' element without a 'name' attribute? > The list of known CPU feature > + names (e.g. 'vmx', 'cmt', et cetera) can be found in the same > + file as CPU models -- <code>cpu_map.xml</code>. For example, > + to explicitly specify the 'pcid' feature with Intel IvyBridge > + CPU model: Another paragraph above already says "The list of known feature names can be found in the same file as CPU models". If you think the existing paragraph is not enough, I suggest rewriting it so the document won't repeat exactly the same thing. > + > +<pre> > +... > +<cpu match='exact'> > + <model fallback='forbid'>IvyBridge</model> > + <vendor>Intel</vendor> > + <feature policy='require' name='pcid'/> > +</cpu> > +...</pre> > + > </dd> > > <dt><code>cache</code></dt> > -- > 2.13.6 > -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
