Re: [libvirt] [BUG] mlock support breakage
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:53:33 -0400
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino(a)redhat.com> wrote:
OK, you're right. I personally don't like we're putting a
random cap
on QEMU memory allocations, but if it's large enough it shouldn't be
a problem (I hope).
The I hope part meaning, if we do find legitimate reasons for QEMU's
address space to go beyond $LARGE_NUMBER, it will be means of guests
randomly crashing when using <locked/>.