On 11.07.2012 10:42, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: > On 07/10/2012 05:50 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 09.07.2012 14:33, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: >>> On 07/03/2012 06:18 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>>> On 29.06.2012 17:02, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote: >>>>> Added s390-virtio machine type to the XML schema for domains in order >>>>> to not fail the domain schema tests. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski<mihajlov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>>>> b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>>>> index 912a1a2..70c7d16 100644 >>>>> --- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>>>> +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >>>>> @@ -283,6 +283,7 @@ >>>>> <ref name="hvmsparc"/> >>>>> <ref name="hvmppc"/> >>>>> <ref name="hvmppc64"/> >>>>> +<ref name="hvms390"/> >>>>> </choice> >>>>> </optional> >>>>> <value>hvm</value> >>>>> @@ -369,6 +370,25 @@ >>>>> </optional> >>>>> </group> >>>>> </define> >>>>> +<define name="hvms390"> >>>>> +<group> >>>>> +<optional> >>>>> +<attribute name="arch"> >>>>> +<choice> >>>>> +<value>s390</value> >>>>> +<value>s390x</value> >>>>> +</choice> >>>>> +</attribute> >>>>> +</optional> >>>>> +<optional> >>>>> +<attribute name="machine"> >>>>> +<choice> >>>>> +<value>s390-virtio</value> >> >> [1]^^ >> >>>>> +</choice> >>>>> +</attribute> >>>>> +</optional> >>>>> +</group> >>>>> +</define> >>>>> <define name="osexe"> >>>>> <element name="os"> >>>>> <element name="type"> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry cannot ACK this one until you update the documentation as well. >>>> >>>> Michal >>>> >>> >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> actually I was pondering about a doc update when preparing the patches. >>> I only wasn't clear where to put it. The only place where possible >>> arch/machine values are mentioned seems to be in formatcaps.html.in. >>> Would you expect me to add a sample output of the capabilities XML for >>> s390 with some comments in there, or did you have something else in >>> mind? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >> >> Actually, now I am going through docs I don't see a proper place >> neither. Moreover, in formatdomain.html.in we state: "The Capabilities >> XML provides details on allowed values for these" [these = @machine and >> @type] So as long as we report them in capabilities XML I guess we don't >> really need an doc extension. >> >> However, I think this [1] should be virtio-s390 instead of s390-virtio >> since we use the former among the code. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Michal >> > > the naming is awkward and I stumble over it from time to time too. > Unfortunately this is the terminology qemu uses. > > In a nutshell: > s390-virtio = machine type, meaning s390 machine with virtio bus > virtio-s390 = bus type, meaning s390-specific virtio bus > > The current virtio bus on s390 is a fully virtual bus not related to a > real hardware bus like the PCI bus on the other architectures. So, while > the names looks strange, they are technically correct. > Okay. I've pushed the patch set. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list