On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 05:42:47PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 01:26:38PM +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > The original text was not explaining what this attribute actually > > controls and could have been interpreted as a control switch for the > > Secure boot feature in firmwares. > > Yep, I've indeed seen people misread it as such. > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > docs/formatdomain.rst | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.rst b/docs/formatdomain.rst > > index a2ea2690a5..c101d5a1f1 100644 > > --- a/docs/formatdomain.rst > > +++ b/docs/formatdomain.rst > > @@ -167,7 +167,9 @@ harddisk, cdrom, network) determining where to obtain/find the boot image. > > in the guest memory the file should be mapped. For instance, if the loader > > path points to an UEFI image, ``type`` should be ``pflash``. Moreover, some > > firmwares may implement the Secure boot feature. Attribute ``secure`` can be > > - used then to control it. :since:`Since 2.1.0` > > + used to tell the hypervisor that the firmware implements Secure Boot Feature. > > s/Feature/feature/ > > Perhaps: "firmware is capable of Secure Boot feature" Sounds reasonable, will change it. > > + It cannot be used to enable or disable the feature itself in the firmware. > > + :since:`Since 2.1.0` > > This additional clarification is good. > > (Nit-pick: not this patch's fault: consistently use "Secure Boot"; I see > both "Secure boot" and "Secure Boot".) If you check our documentation we lack consistency almost everywhere :) until this is enforced by some check it will happen all the time. > Address the above only if you're respinning. FWIW: > > Reviewed-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, I need to do some other changes to the series before pushing so I'll apply this suggestions as well before pushing. Pavel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
