[libvirt] [PATCH v2] bandwidth: Adjust documentation

[John Ferlan]

>>
>>       <h5><a name="elementVlanTag">Setting VLAN tag (on supported network types only)</a></h5>
>> diff --git a/docs/formatnetwork.html.in b/docs/formatnetwork.html.in
>> index 1ca1bec..d4c390a 100644
>> --- a/docs/formatnetwork.html.in
>> +++ b/docs/formatnetwork.html.in
>> @@ -412,40 +412,81 @@
>>
>>         <p>
>>           The <code><bandwidth></code> element allows setting
>> -        quality of service for a particular network.
>> -        <span class="since">Since 0.9.4</span> The limits specified
>> +        quality of service for a particular network
>> +        (<span class="since">since 0.9.4</span>). For a <code>domain</code>
>> +        object, the limits specified are applied to the domain traffic.
> 
> I'm quite sure about the 'domain traffic'. The <bandwidth/> under domain 
> limits the particular <interface/> that has <bandwidth/>. Having 'domain 
> traffic' written here may sound like if the domain traffic was 
> aggregated and then shaped (which is done in network not in domain).
> Maybe 'domain interface traffic'?
> 

Right - I struggled with this one when trying to merge things. Using
"domain interface traffic" does target a bit better. Of course the
context is discussing network bandwidth, so I guess I just assumed - hah
- that the reader would consider the domain traffic as the traffic for
that interface.

In the end, they both affect the same target interface; however, it
wasn't quite clear which would take precedence.  If the interface had
one set of values on it, then the domain was defined with a different
set, then what happens?  Or vice versa - a domain with a set of values
applied to an interface and then someone edits the network interface. It
seems it would be the "last" set to be applied that would "win".

Since this is an active topic for other recent patches, hopefully we can
come up with a wording that will stick going forward.  I've copied Laine
on this response just to bring it to his attention and get his take as
well...


Tks,

John