[libvirt] [PATCH] docs: formatdomain: Document the CPU feature 'name' attribute
Eduardo Habkost
ehabkost at redhat.com
Tue Jan 16 17:35:20 UTC 2018
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:31:16PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> Currently, the CPU feature 'name' XML attribute, as in:
>
> [...]
> <cpu match='exact'>
> <model fallback='forbid'>IvyBridge</model>
> <vendor>Intel</vendor>
> <feature policy='require' name='pcid'/>
> </cpu>
> [...]
>
> isn't explicitly documented in formatdomain.html.
>
> Document it now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart at redhat.com>
> ---
> docs/formatdomain.html.in | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> index d272cc1ba..e717fb3aa 100644
> --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> @@ -1454,6 +1454,23 @@
>
> <span class="since">Since 0.8.5</span> the <code>policy</code>
> attribute can be omitted and will default to <code>require</code>.
> +
> + Individual CPU feature names can be specified as part of the
> + <code>name</code> attribute.
Isn't this "should" instead of "can"? Does it make sense to have
a 'feature' element without a 'name' attribute?
> The list of known CPU feature
> + names (e.g. 'vmx', 'cmt', et cetera) can be found in the same
> + file as CPU models -- <code>cpu_map.xml</code>. For example,
> + to explicitly specify the 'pcid' feature with Intel IvyBridge
> + CPU model:
Another paragraph above already says "The list of known feature
names can be found in the same file as CPU models". If you think
the existing paragraph is not enough, I suggest rewriting it so
the document won't repeat exactly the same thing.
> +
> +<pre>
> +...
> +<cpu match='exact'>
> + <model fallback='forbid'>IvyBridge</model>
> + <vendor>Intel</vendor>
> + <feature policy='require' name='pcid'/>
> +</cpu>
> +...</pre>
> +
> </dd>
>
> <dt><code>cache</code></dt>
> --
> 2.13.6
>
--
Eduardo
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list