On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:40:58PM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: libvir-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:libvir-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:14:43PM +0800, Chen Hanxiao wrote: > > > > From: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > This patch enables percentage limit for ram filesystem > > > > > > > > <filesystem type='ram'> > > > > <source usage='10%'/> > > > > <target dir='/mnt'/> > > > > </filesystem> > > > > > > > > Percentage limit would have more priority than size limit. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > src/conf/domain_conf.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- > > > > src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > I'm not really convinced we need this feature. Seems like more code for > > > little real benefit. > > > > > > > I think we should follow the style of mount(8). It accepted this style. > > > > And this feature could bring us convenience in config, free us from > counting the > > size. > > Do we really don't need this feature? Or we may need some code > optimization? I just don't see this as a compelling feature. I think it is more important to have a single canonical representation of memory allocation. User convenience is something for higher level tools to worry about. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list