On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:32:18 +0100 Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:43:03 +0000 > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:39, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > Move to system/, as this is mostly about configuring vfio-ap. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> > > > - Example 1: Valid configuration: > > > - ------------------------------ > > > - Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6 > > > - Guest2: adapter 1,2 domain 7 > > > +Example 1: Valid configuration > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > +Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6 > > > +Guest2: adapter 1,2 domain 7 > > > > These don't render correctly -- rST thinks the "Example 1..." line > > is a subsection heading because of the underlining, and then renders > > the next two lines as runon-text: > > "Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6 Guest2: adapter 1,2 domain 7" > > > > Depending on what you want, you could try one of: > > * use a literal block (which gets you fixed-width font, preserved > > whitespace and linebreaks) > > * use a bulleted list > > * use one of rST's table formats > > Hm... I think this is supposed to be: > - header ("Example 1: ...") > - config > - explanation why this is a valid config > > Maybe a table? Tony, any preferences? > > > > > (is it deliberate that line 1 is "adapters" and line 2 is "adapter" ?) > > I don't think so. > > > > > > - This is valid because both guests have a unique set of APQNs: Guest1 > > > has > > > - APQNs (1,5), (1,6), (2,5) and (2,6); Guest2 has APQNs (1,7) and (2,7). > > > +This is valid because both guests have a unique set of APQNs: Guest1 has > > > +APQNs (1,5), (1,6), (2,5) and (2,6); Guest2 has APQNs (1,7) and (2,7). This section now looks like this: Example 1: Valid configuration ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +----------+--------+--------+ | | Guest1 | Guest2 | +==========+========+========+ | adapters | 1, 2 | 1, 2 | +----------+--------+--------+ | domains | 5, 6 | 7 | +----------+--------+--------+ This is valid because both guests have a unique set of APQNs: * Guest1 has APQNs (1,5), (1,6), (2,5) and (2,6); * Guest2 has APQNs (1,7) and (2,7). Seems more readable to me, also in the rendered html. (Not sure if switching rows/columns would be better.)