On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:40:58PM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: libvir-list-bounces(a)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(a)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(a)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 :|