On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:53:33 -0400 Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> 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/>. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
