On 3 May 2013 08:37, Guido Trotter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Bernardo Dal Seno <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Renaming the current parameters dealing with spindles is nice, as their >> meaning would be clearer, but that would mean changing a lot of code, >> change external interfaces, and renaming internal variables for little >> benefit. Also, instance policies would end up containing two related >> parameters, one used when exclusive_storage is enabled, and the other when >> disabled. Reusing the existing parameters by changing slightly their >> semantics makes more sense. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bernardo Dal Seno <[email protected]> > > LGTM > I hope it's not too confusing.
I think it's less confusing this way, though probably not optimal. But if you have further suggestions, please share them. Just to clarify, as my comments seem to suggest otherwise: the main reason for this patch is not to cut on the work to do (as I've done most of it already), but the problem was that the more I changed the code the less I liked the result. So I went back to the design doc, and tried to find a better way. And in the end we can also improve the spindle concept when exclusive storage is off, if we use the real number of spindles for nodes instead of an artificial parameters. Bernardo
