23-Sep-16 23:51, John Ferlan пишет: [snip]
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
Just a pointer to the previous disscussion: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg01941.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-May/msg00208.html Maxim