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

[Martin Kletzander]

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 :)

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20140915/846143e4/attachment-0001.sig>