On 1/29/19 8:49 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 16:32 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote: > [...] >> +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng >> @@ -2499,6 +2499,15 @@ >> </element> >> </optional> >> </interleave> >> + <optional> >> + <attribute name="model"> >> + <choice> >> + <value>virtio-9p</value> >> + <value>virtio-9p-transitional</value> >> + <value>virtio-9p-non-transitional</value> > > I thought there was rough consensus on having separate 'model' > and 'protocol' attributes, with the former using the same values > as other VirtIO devices, but looking through the archives I've > found > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-January/msg00799.html > > where you said you were going this route for v2... Sorry I didn't > notice earlier and thus didn't have a chance to yell :) > > I think being consistent with other devices is more important than, > for lack of a better term, "marketing" virtio-fs. > > Moreover, management applications like virt-manager and Cockpit > will probably present this as a single drop-down to users, so it > hardly matters that it ultimately ends up being translated to two > separate attributes and what the corresponding values are. >
Okay I'll go with the protocol= syntax danpb suggested Thanks, Cole -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
