[libvirt] [PATCHv2 2/7] Move network route definition to networkcommon.rng

[Laine Stump]

On 01/15/2015 07:11 AM, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 11:58 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 15.01.2015 10:25, Cédric Bosdonnat wrote:
>>> Moving network route to the network common schema will allow reusing it.
>>> ---
>>>  docs/schemas/network.rng       | 20 +-------------------
>>>  docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/docs/schemas/network.rng b/docs/schemas/network.rng
>>> index 9a7d156..63d81c1 100644
>>> --- a/docs/schemas/network.rng
>>> +++ b/docs/schemas/network.rng
>>> @@ -371,25 +371,7 @@
>>>          </zeroOrMore>
>>>          <!-- <route> element -->
>>>          <zeroOrMore>
>>> -          <!-- The (static) route element specifies a network address and gateway
>>> -               address to access that network. Both the network address and
>>> -               the gateway address must be specified. -->
>>> -          <element name="route">
>>> -            <optional>
>>> -              <attribute name="family"><ref name="addr-family"/></attribute>
>>> -            </optional>
>>> -            <attribute name="address"><ref name="ipAddr"/></attribute>
>>> -            <optional>
>>> -              <choice>
>>> -                <attribute name="netmask"><ref name="ipv4Addr"/></attribute>
>>> -                <attribute name="prefix"><ref name="ipPrefix"/></attribute>
>>> -              </choice>
>>> -            </optional>
>>> -            <attribute name="gateway"><ref name="ipAddr"/></attribute>
>>> -            <optional>
>>> -              <attribute name="metric"><ref name="unsignedInt"/></attribute>
>>> -            </optional>
>>> -          </element>
>>> +          <ref name="routex"/>
>>>          </zeroOrMore>
>>>        </interleave>
>>>      </element>
>>> diff --git a/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng b/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng
>>> index e26b7f3..cbcae91 100644
>>> --- a/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng
>>> +++ b/docs/schemas/networkcommon.rng
>>> @@ -224,4 +224,26 @@
>>>        <param name='maxInclusive'>65535</param>
>>>      </data>
>>>    </define>
>>> +
>>> +  <!-- The (static) route element specifies a network address and gateway
>>> +       address to access that network. Both the network address and
>>> +       the gateway address must be specified. -->
>>> +  <define name='routex'>
>> routex? That's an odd name. However, looking into the future at 4/7 I
>> can see why yo need to do it this way.
> Such a name was proposed by Laine to avoid the definition conflict when
> moving to networkcommon.rng. May be a better name could still be
> appreciated, even for a temporary renaming.

I *think* what I wanted to suggest was a tiny patch beforehand to rename
the "route" in domaincommon.rng into "routex", then making this patch
with the name "route" - that way this patch could be backported by
itself to an older stable branch if necessary, without the followup
patch that renames to "route".

I'm really starting to... what's the term? "bikeshed"? No, that's not
it... "Be a pain in the %&@&#"? yeah, that's the one... though, so if
that's the only issue, I wouldn't worry about a respin :-)

ACK either way.