On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:39:17PM +0000, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi Rafael, Daniel, > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:22 PM Rafael David Tinoco < > rafael.tin...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > Let me work on it. I'll get back soon. > > > > > thanks for working on it, before that I have a few questions: > > Tks Daniel. > > > > > On Oct 04, 2016, at 05:36, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 04:15:55PM -0300, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: > > >> Yes, definitely. Check this: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > So in that case, I think we must add ability to specify an explicit path > > > that apps can use *regardles* of whether memfd support exists or not. > > > > How will this path be used? Is it going to be global to qemu for various > use (kinda like $TMP), or per-device, or for memfd fallback only? Should > the path pre-exist? (I suppose, if not, qemu should clean it up when > leaving)
I'd expect it to be an option set against the vhost user backend, since that's the thing using this. If other things have similar usage needs wrt memfd in future, they would also need similar path config option. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
