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
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list