On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 08/14/2012 04:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >To clarify, the global state that this patch adds, is ugly > >even if we didn't support multiple balloons yet. > >So I don't think I can accept such a patch. > >Rusty has a final word here, maybe he thinks differently. > > Before deciding that "does not support multiple balloon drivers > at once" is an issue, is there any use case at all for having > multiple balloon drivers active at a time? > > I do not see any. For example, we had a proposal for a page-cache backed device. So it could be useful to have two, a regular balloon and a pagecache backed one. There could be other uses - it certainly looks like it works so how can you be sure it's useless? And even ignoring that, global pointer to a device is an ugly hack and ugly hacks tend to explode. And even ignoring estetics, and if we decide we are fine with a single balloon, it needs to fail gracefully not crash like it does now. > -- > All rights reversed _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
