On 04/10/18 12:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/04/2018 11:23, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> And, really, this seems to reinforce my point that the schema should
>>> live in the libvirtd tree, not in the QEMU tree. In that case, perhaps
>>> it would be a better fit to work with an XSD, and firmware packages
>>> should install XML files? Personally I'm a lot more attracted to
>>> XML/XSD; I think the tooling is better too. I just don't see how QEMU is
>>> involved.
>>
>> This is defining a set of metadata that is required to use various firmware
>> files in combination with QEMU, along with defining a mapping to QEMU command
>> line arguments and/or features. Essentially, while I wish everyone used
>> libvirt, libvirt is not the only thing that manages QEMU. This information is
>> relevant to anyone managing QEMU, so it doesn't belong in libvirt's realm,
>> it is clear QEMU is best placed to declare this information.
> 
> QEMU is best placed to _standardize_ how to provide this information
> (and where in the file system to place it), but really it's up to
> firmware packages to provide it.
> 
> We can of course define the schema in QAPI terms for ease of validation
> (machine-readable specs are nice to have), but really this should just
> be a file in docs/interop/.  No code is needed in QEMU.

OK -- while we're figuring out the schema, I guess I'll keep posting
RFCs that change source code / json, but finally we can move it to
docs/interop.

Thanks!
Laszlo

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

Reply via email to