Re: [libvirt] [PATCH rfc v2 0/8] fspool: backend directory

I think rather than just copy what the storage pool does, I would think the new driver could "build up" what it needs based on some consensus based on what makes sense for the usage model. >> Having a guest mount a host file system would seem to be possible >> through other means. I also start wondering about security implications >> for either side (haven't put too much thought into it). What can the >> guest put "on" the host file system and vice versa where different >> security policies may exist for allowing such placement. >> >> Perhaps rather than a large dump of code the RFC should state the goal, >> purpose, usage, etc. and see if that's what the community wants or is >> willing to provide feedback on. > This was previously done in the mailing list many months ago now. > Well a pointer would have been nice... Obviously I didn't remember it! There was an fspools v1 posted 8/19. I think there was an assumption that list readers/reviewers would remember some original RFC. I didn't. I've just been going through older patches that haven't had review and this just came up as "next" (actually I had started thinking about the v1 when v2 showed up). John