[libvirt] [PATCH] rng: tighten up domain <controller> schema

[Martin Kletzander]

On 04/18/2013 11:05 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
> On 18/04/13 17:00, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>> On 04/18/2013 10:54 AM, Osier Yang wrote:
>>> On 18/04/13 16:42, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>>>> On 04/18/2013 06:36 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
>>>>> The rng schema for <controller> had been non-specific about which
>>>>> types of controllers allowed which models, and also allowed the
>>>>> num_queues attribute (since that hasn't been released yet, should we
>>>>> rename it to "numQueues"?)
>>>> Since there's still time (the commit with that is
>>>> v1.0.4-65-gd4bf0a9), I
>>>> think we should rename it ASAP since we are using camelCase for all the
>>>> attribute names.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that, the RNG with this patch is precise according to the
>>>> documentation, so ACK.  I'll try to send the numQueues patch to see
>>>> what
>>>> others think.
>>> I guess you mean multiple queues support for virtio network?
>>> Regardless of which style we will use finally, FYI,  "num_queues" is
>>> used for disk.. Personally I'm fine with either, because we already
>>> use both across.
>>>
>> Yes, I meant the virtio-scsi num_queues.  As we're trying not to use
>> underscores in XML, I hope we can still switch it.  I haven't found any
>> other num_queues anywhere in the code.  Could you point me to the commit
>> that uses that?  I'm sending the previously discussed patch in the
>> meantime.
>>
> Except the virtio-scsi num_queues, there is no other tag for multiple
> queue yet, we will need a patch to support multiple queue for the network,
> but it's not committed yet.
> 
> It's fine to convert it now, 1.0.5 is not released yet. But is it
> deserved to
> do, we already have many tags with underscore, which can't be changed
> for back-compat.
> 

I believe those attributes [1] were created by mistake, and kept only
because of backward compatibility.  I'm trying to be open-minded,
though, so I'm not forcing my patch in, but seeing it just as a
proposal.  Others may have different opinions and I'm willing to discuss
that.  My first feeling, though, was that we should try to keep the same
policy for as many of them as possible.  OTOH, I've mistaken the
underscore with a hyphen when I remembered what Daniel told me about
attributes [2].  Underscore is not such a deal breaker, yes.  Let's see
what will be the opinion on the patch I've sent [3].

Martin

[1] I've found out only these:
 - logical_block_size
 - physical_block_size
 - error_policy
 - rerror_policy
 - event_idx
 - copy_on_read vendor_id
[2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-September/msg01411.html
[3] http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-April/msg01340.html