13 Mar
2017
13 Mar
'17
2:08 p.m.
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:53:33 -0400 Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@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/>.