[libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] docs, conf, schema: add support for shared memory mapping

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 01:19:25PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:20:01AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:47:45AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:46:27PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote:
> >>>>On 09/08/2014 01:40 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan at redhat.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  docs/formatdomain.html.in                          |  7 +++-
> >>>>>  docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng                      |  5 +++
> >>>>>  src/conf/cpu_conf.c                                | 25 +++++++++++-
> >>>>>  src/conf/cpu_conf.h                                |  7 ++--
> >>>>>  .../qemuxml2argv-cpu-numa-memshared.xml            | 28 ++++++++++++++
> >>>>>  .../qemuxml2argv-hugepages-shared.xml              | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>  tests/qemuxml2xmltest.c                            |  2 +
> >>>>>  7 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-cpu-numa-memshared.xml
> >>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-hugepages-shared.xml
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> >>>>> index 94236dd..b284d6e 100644
> >>>>> --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> >>>>> +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> >>>>> @@ -1105,7 +1105,7 @@
> >>>>>      ...
> >>>>>      <numa>
> >>>>>        <cell id='0' cpus='0-3' memory='512000'/>
> >>>>> -      <cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='512000'/>
> >>>>> +      <cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='512000' memShared='on'/>
> >>>>
> >>>>I wonder if "shared='on'" would be enough, avoiding the need for a multi-word
> >>>>attribute.
> >>>
> >>>Or how about   access="shared|private"   ?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I prepended the "mem" so that it is visible that it has something to
> >>do with the memory, not the whole node.  But I'm OK with pushing
> >>shared= as well.  Using access= seems too ambiguously worded to me,
> >>although if most of you agree...
> >
> >Sure, memAccess is fine with me.
> >
> 
> Is there any possibility of that option having another value (in the
> future)?  Otherwise shared= seems more appropriate to me.  Let's see
> what others think, so I can finally get rid of this problem :)

I prefer the approach of having values reflect the usage, as 'shared' vs
'private' for the value is clearer than  'on' vs 'off' IMHO.


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 :|