[libvirt PATCH 1/9] docs: improve description of secure attribute for loader element

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 01:26:38PM +0100, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> The original text was not explaining what this attribute actually
> controls and could have been interpreted as a control switch for the
> Secure boot feature in firmwares.

Yep, I've indeed seen people misread it as such.

> Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina at redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/formatdomain.rst | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.rst b/docs/formatdomain.rst
> index a2ea2690a5..c101d5a1f1 100644
> --- a/docs/formatdomain.rst
> +++ b/docs/formatdomain.rst
> @@ -167,7 +167,9 @@ harddisk, cdrom, network) determining where to obtain/find the boot image.
>     in the guest memory the file should be mapped. For instance, if the loader
>     path points to an UEFI image, ``type`` should be ``pflash``. Moreover, some
>     firmwares may implement the Secure boot feature. Attribute ``secure`` can be
> -   used then to control it. :since:`Since 2.1.0`
> +   used to tell the hypervisor that the firmware implements Secure Boot Feature.

s/Feature/feature/

Perhaps: "firmware is capable of Secure Boot feature"

> +   It cannot be used to enable or disable the feature itself in the firmware.
> +   :since:`Since 2.1.0`

This additional clarification is good.

(Nit-pick: not this patch's fault: consistently use "Secure Boot"; I see
both "Secure boot" and "Secure Boot".)

Address the above only if you're respinning.  FWIW:

Reviewed-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart at redhat.com>    

>  ``nvram``
>     Some UEFI firmwares may want to use a non-volatile memory to store some
>     variables. In the host, this is represented as a file and the absolute path
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 

-- 
/kashyap