[libvirt] [PATCH] docs: formatdomain: Document the CPU feature 'name' attribute

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:35:20PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:31:16PM +0100, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > Currently, the CPU feature 'name' XML attribute, as in:

[...]

> > ---
> >  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?

Good catch.  Near as I see, it doesn't.  So I'll: s/can/should.

> 
> >                                       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.

True.  How about this rewrite: 

    "Once you choose a feature (e.g. 'pcid') from the `cpu_map.xml`, to
    specify it explicitly with the Intel IvyBridge CPU model [...]"

I'll consider whether to also add a note that before specifying extra
CPU feature flags, one should check if the named CPU models provided by
libvirt already include the said flags.

[...]

-- 
/kashyap