On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:04:26AM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:35:20PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:31:16PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > > > Currently, the CPU feature 'name' XML attribute, as in: > > [...] > > > > --- > > > 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? > > Good catch. Near as I see, it doesn't. So I'll: s/can/should. > > > > > > 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. > > True. How about this rewrite: > > "Once you choose a feature (e.g. 'pcid') from the `cpu_map.xml`, to > specify it explicitly with the Intel IvyBridge CPU model [...]" "Once you choose a feature (e.g. 'pcid') from the `cpu_map.xml`" doesn't seem to convey any additional information that wasn't mentioned before. What about just "For example, to explicitly specify the 'pcid' feature with Intel IvyBridge CPU model:"? > > I'll consider whether to also add a note that before specifying extra > CPU feature flags, one should check if the named CPU models provided by > libvirt already include the said flags. Maybe this would be too much information. It's harmless to set a feature explicitly to 'require' if the CPU model already contains the feature. -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
