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 <mklet...@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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
