On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 12:21:02PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote: > > [...] > > >> + > >> + <p>The following section decribes subelements of the > >> + <code>poolOptions</code> and <code>volOptions</code> subelements </p>: > >> + > >> + <dl> > >> + <dt><code>defaultFormat</code></dt> > >> + <dd>For the <code>poolOptions</code>, the <code>type</code> attribute > >> + describes the default format name used for the pool source. For the > >> + <code>volOptions</code>, the <code>type</code> attribute describes > >> + the default volume name used for each volume. > >> + </dd> > >> + <dl> > >> + <dt><code>enum</code></dt> > >> + <dd>Each enum uses a name from the list below with any number of > >> + <code>value</code> value subelements describing the valid values. > >> + <dl> > >> + <dt><code>sourceFormatType</code></dt> > >> + <dd>Lists all the possible <code>poolOptions</code> source > >> + pool format types. > >> + </dd> > >> + <dt><code>requiredSourceElements</code></dt> > >> + <dd>Lists all the required <code>poolOptions</code> source > >> + subelements required for a valid source pool element. > >> + </dd> > > > > I know that this is now pushed and I just noticed that in the relevant > > BZ where you posted the output of storage capabilities. > > > > Why do we export <requiredSourceElements> in storage capabilities? > > It doesn't make any sense to have it there. Management applications > > using libvirt have to have some knowledge of libvirt and they have to > > know what elements are required for each storage pool type in order to > > create some sensible UI. In addition this is something that will most > > likely never change and will not depend on what packages are installed > > or how libvirt/qemu were compiled. > > Because it was data that perhaps someone would find useful when > formulating XML for a storage pool. Each pool has different "required" > elements that are hidden in the bowels of storage_conf and I figured it > could be useful to have. Creating/defining a pool of a type that doesn't > have a required element would cause a failure. > > > > IMHO we should drop this element from storage capabilities unless there > > was some motivation to include this information. > > > > IDC either way and am fine with dropping that element. The patches > themselves were posted since 2/12, pinged on twice, sorry if you missed > the details before I ended up pushing them. We have plenty of time > before the 5.2.0 release to make a decision at least! NP, my fault that I didn't notice that sooner, I just skimmed the patches telling myself that I'll review it later since I was working on virt-manager patches. Anyway, I'll send a patch to remove it from capabilities where we can decide what whether to keep it there or not. Pavel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
