Re: [RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>]

On 28/08/2015 19:18, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:

>On 28/08/15 18:51, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>>
>>
>> We may need some extra tags/headings, if we were to include things such
>>as supported limits for memory, vCPUs, ... I remember, you raised the
>>point that some of the theoretical limits are not always tested.
>
>Absolutely.  Not everyone has a server with 123TB of RAM to hand, or
>even 16TB which is default current limit.  (For this issue, testing from
>both Citrix and Oracle indicates a bug when more than 5TB of RAM is used.)
>
>Therefore, a distinction between the theoretical limit and
>currently-tested limit is very useful.  I expect the the commercial
>stakeholders will be in a position to routinely test at far above the
>limit available to direct consumers of the Xen project.
>
>For the in-tree statement of limits, I have not put much though to how
>to represent them yet, but I am not sure that the feature template
>proposed in #1 will be a great fit.  I suspect we will want something a
>little different.

Maybe a master document for system stuff, with a slightly different format.

I may have missed this: what kind of mark-up is being used?
http://pandoc.org/ seems to support a few: may need to add a README with a
couple of pointers.

And I am assuming some sort of index is produced when these docs are
built: correct?

Lars