Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:16:40PM +0100, Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> Dave Allan wrote:
>>> Attached is a fully functional version of the node device udev based
>>> backend, incorporating all the feedback from earlier revisions. I broke
>>> the new capability fields out into a separate patch per Dan's
>>> suggestion, and I have also included a patch removing the DevKit backend.
>>
>> 3) I took a look at how the network is represented in the XML. In the HAL
>> backend, we get something that looks like:
>>
>> <device>
>> <name>net_00_13_20_f5_fa_e3</name>
>> <parent>pci_8086_10bd</parent>
>> <capability type='net'>
>> <interface>eth0</interface>
>> <address>00:13:20:f5:fa:e3</address>
>> <capability type='80203'/>
>> </capability>
>> </device>
>>
>> That "<capability type='80203'/>" looks to be bogus (although I could be wrong;
>> that same XML is encoded into the tests, so maybe there is something else going
>> on). You are already in a <capability> block, so that should probably just be
>> "<type='80203'/>". The same problem occurs in the udev backend.
>
> Why do you think the '<capability type='80203'/>' bit is bogus ? That looks
> correct to me, showing that eth0 is a ethernet device (as opposed to a 80211
> wireless, or neither)
Oh, I think the concept is useful, it's just that the way it is represented in
the XML looks weird:
<capability type='net'>
...
<capability type='80203'/>
</capability>
Shouldn't this rather be:
<capability type='net'>
...
<type>80203</type>
</capability>
Or:
<capability type='net' subtype='80203'>
...
</capability>
Or something like that?
--
Chris Lalancette
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list