On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:03:51AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On 06/20/14 16:19, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > The virEmulatorCapabilities is going to hold emulator capabilities, > > surprisingly. It's intended to be able to cover qemuCaps, lxcCaps > > (once we invent them, if ever) and so on. Among with adding the code > > itself, both some documentation and basic testing is introduced too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > ... > > > > > diff --git a/docs/formatemulatorcaps.html.in b/docs/formatemulatorcaps.html.in > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..beea1a9 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/docs/formatemulatorcaps.html.in > > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ > > +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > > +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";> > > +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";> > > + <body> > > + <h1>Emulator capabilities XML format</h1> > > + > > + <ul id="toc"></ul> > > + > > + <h2><a name="Motivation">Motivation</a></h2> > > + > > + <p>Sometimes, when a new domain is to be created it may come handy to know > > + the capabilities of the hypervisor so the correct combination of devices and > > + drivers is used. For example, when management application is considering the > > + mode for a host device's passthrough there are several options depending not > > + only on host, but on hypervisor in question too. If the hypervisor is qemu > > + then it needs to be more recent to support VFIO, while legacy KVM is > > + achievable just fine with older one.</p> > > + > > + <p>The main difference between <a > > + href="formatcaps.html">virConnectGetCapabilities</a> and the emulator > > + capabilities API is, the former one aims more on the host capabilities (e.g. > > + NUMA topology, security models in effect, etc.) while the latter one > > + specializes on the hypervisor capabilities.</p> > > + > > + <h2><a name="elements">Element and attribute overview</a></h2> > > + > > + <p>The root element that emulator capability XML document starts with has > > + name <code>emulatorCapabilities</code>. It contains at least three direct > > + child elements:</p> > > We also have a <features> subelement of <guest> in the <capabilities> > XML which is used for a similar thing although it doesn't support a > per-machine-type output, only per-binary capabilities. Should we add > this more granular approach and abandon the old one? Yes, we should stop adding stuff related to the guest to the main <capabilities> XML since it doesn't scale. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list