On 2/6/19 12:46 PM, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 1/29/19 8:49 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: >> On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 16:32 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote: >> [...] >>> +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>> @@ -2499,6 +2499,15 @@ >>> </element> >>> </optional> >>> </interleave> >>> + <optional> >>> + <attribute name="model"> >>> + <choice> >>> + <value>virtio-9p</value> >>> + <value>virtio-9p-transitional</value> >>> + <value>virtio-9p-non-transitional</value> >> >> I thought there was rough consensus on having separate 'model' >> and 'protocol' attributes, with the former using the same values >> as other VirtIO devices, but looking through the archives I've >> found >> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-January/msg00799.html >> >> where you said you were going this route for v2... Sorry I didn't >> notice earlier and thus didn't have a chance to yell :) >> >> I think being consistent with other devices is more important than, >> for lack of a better term, "marketing" virtio-fs. >> >> Moreover, management applications like virt-manager and Cockpit >> will probably present this as a single drop-down to users, so it >> hardly matters that it ultimately ends up being translated to two >> separate attributes and what the corresponding values are. >> > > Okay I'll go with the protocol= syntax danpb suggested > Althought I guess the protocol= syntax is really only interesting once we have another use case like usb-mtp or virtio-fs wired up. So I guess I'll just do model=virtio|virtio-transitional|virtio-non-transitional - Cole -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
