On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 16:16 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > My reasoning was to try and organize them the > > way we already do with <kvm> and <hyperv> capabilities - even > > though pSeries is not a hypervisor per se, you can kinda see > > sPAPR as a specification implemented by various hypervisors, like > > PowerVM and in our case QEMU/KVM. But if you think this effort is > > misguided and they belong to the top-level <features> element, > > then I'm okay with that too. > > I guess where the nesting makes sense is if there's a chance of having > namespace collision between features. eg if both kvm and hyperv > had a feature called "pvspinlocks", you might want to enable them > separately, so the nesting is important there. Mh, I don't foresee that kind of collision happening. We should be safe; and if it ever turns out not to be the case, then we can just nest the new features instead. I'll respin a simpler version of this. Thanks for the feedback :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
