Re: [Libvir] PATCH: 0/16: Storage management APIs

DL> It would eliminate the need for mounts. Why? DL> Does it make more sense to integrate into the storage API design DL> or leave the separate container specific mounts? From the perspective of a CIM provider, being able to correlate the storage used by any set of domains (be them virtual machines or a containers) to each other is important. Even if you can't provision* an overlay directory with libvirt (in the way that this API lets you provision an LV), being able to model the existence of one is important. I don't think this will change the XML of a container, but it will give us a way to associate the path provided for a mount to a storage pool. [*] provisioning in the containers case would be a recursive directory copy of a template overlay directory, which is what Dan was saying he didn't want to do -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center Open Hypervisor Team email: danms(a)us.ibm.com