Hi Daniel,
Makes sense, agreed.
However, did you get a chance to review the security_model patch?
On 10/06/2010 09:59 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 06:22:29PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:30:10PM +0530, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
>> This patch introduces a new attribute export_fs to the filesystem
>> element which specifies the type of export. Currently only 'local'
>> type of exported filesystem is supported. More types like NFS, clusterFS, etc.
>> can be added later as required.
>>
>> Note: This patch is based on the following two patches:
>> 1) Daniel's patch to support 9pfs:
>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2010-September/msg00358.html
>> 2) Another related patch to support 'security_model' attribute:
>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2010-September/msg00435.html
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Harsh Prateek Bora<harsh(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Okay, I don't understand what's the point of adding that attribute
> with only one possible value and systematically generated.
> I think it's better to propose this when there is an actual use
> case for the attribute, then it will be easier to say if this is the
> right construct to add or not.
I agree and in fact think this extra attribute is almost certainly the
wrong approach. The existing<filesystem type='....'> attribute should
be sufficient for our needs. When QEMU supports FS backends which
are not 'local', then we will likely add extra values for type='...'
to cope with them. So lets just wait until QEMU actually supports some
non-local modes.
Regards,
Daniel