On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 07:03:52PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> The
>
> <os firmware='efi'>
> <firmware type='efi'>
> <feature enabled='no' name='enrolled-keys'/>
> </firmware>
> </os>
>
> repeats the firmware attribute twice. This has no functional benefit, as
> evidenced by fact that we use a single struct field to store both
> attributes, while needlessly introducing an error scenario. The XML can
> just be simplified to:
>
> <os firmware='efi'>
> <firmware>
> <feature enabled='no' name='enrolled-keys'/>
> </firmware>
> </os>
>
> which also means that we don't need to emit the empty element
> <firmware type='efi'/> for all existing configs too.
My original motivation was that if we ever need to introduce another
attribute to the <firmware> element it would be nicely grouped together.
But I guess it wound not be a big deal if we would have:
<os firmware='efi'>
<firmware someAttr='value'>
<feature enabled='no' name='enrolled-keys'/>
</firmware>
</os>
This would look reasonable as well so
Reviewed-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
