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

[Martin Kletzander]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:40:48PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>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.
>

OK, it makes more sense when you put it like that.  I'll send a v2 to
make sure everyone agrees on all three patches.

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/20140915/1e39d856/attachment-0001.sig>