Il 12/04/2013 13:25, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 12/04/2013 12:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: >>> 1. You have two protocols already and this does not make sense in >>> version 1 of the patch. >> >> It makes sense if we consider it experimental (add x- in front of >> transport and capability) and would like people to play with it. >> >> Paolo > > But it's not testable yet. I see problems just reading the > documentation. Author thinks "ulimit -l 10000000000" on both source and > destination is just fine. This can easily crash host or cause OOM > killer to kill QEMU. So why is there any need for extra testers? Fix > the major bugs first. > > There's a similar issue with device assignment - we can't fix it there, > and despite being available for years, this was one of two reasons that > has kept this feature out of hands of lots of users (and assuming guest > has lots of zero pages won't work: balloon is not widely used either > since it depends on a well-behaved guest to work correctly).
I agree assuming guest has lots of zero pages won't work, but I think you are overstating the importance of overcommit. Let's mark the damn thing as experimental, and stop making perfect the enemy of good. Paolo
