On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:40:58PM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com]
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:14:43PM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote:
From: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@cn.fujitsu.com>
This patch enables percentage limit for ram filesystem
<filesystem type='ram'> <source usage='10%'/> <target dir='/mnt'/> </filesystem>
Percentage limit would have more priority than size limit.
Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@cn.fujitsu.com> --- src/conf/domain_conf.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
I'm not really convinced we need this feature. Seems like more code for little real benefit.
I think we should follow the style of mount(8). It accepted this style.
And this feature could bring us convenience in config, free us from counting the size.
Do we really don't need this feature? Or we may need some code optimization?
I just don't see this as a compelling feature. I think it is more important to have a single canonical representation of memory allocation. User convenience is something for higher level tools to worry about. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|