On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 12:40 -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > The strong wording is intentional: we really, really don't > > want people to enable this unless their setup can't work > > without it. > > I don't see how using strong wording is going to be helpful > to users who need to use the feature. > > The documentation should be helpful and technically clear. It > should instruct, not cause fear. > > Your last paragraph is an improvement, but I really think this > mindset against <locked/> is very wrong. I believe the current wording strikes a good balance between informing users who really need the feature about the potential risks involved and mitigation options that are available to them, and dissuading people who don't actually need memory locking from messing with it. Based on that, I'm not going to be spending any more time on it, but you're of course welcome to improve it further and post the resulting patches on the list :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
