On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bernardo Dal Seno <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Ack, thanks! Guido
