On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 01:45:43PM +0000, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> The following question relates to this change:
> 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/125091/
> 
> This change adds a field to the ComputeNode object called 
> "supported_instances". It also adds an object called "SupportedInstance" that 
> has fields called
> "arch", "hvtype" and "vm_mode".
> 
> All these names already exist in the nova code, but when put together in
> these objects they seem a little odd (i.e. supported_instances may be a
> little misleading, hvtype has no hyphen but vm_mode does). This is where
> they come from:
> 
> -          supported_instances is the name of the corresponding field of
>  the compute_nodes database table. The supported_instances field actually
>  contains a the list of architecture, hypervisor type and vm_mode
>  combinations supported by the compute node. It is also the existing
>  field name used in a dict provided by the virt drivers to report this
>  list to nova.
> 
> 
> -          arch, hvtype and vm_mode are the names used by variables
>   throughout nova that refer to the relevant data obtained contained
>   in supported_instances.
> 
> The question is: are these the names we actually want to use?

I'd like to just kill the underscore in 'vm_mode' as I don't think it
adds any real value.

> Let me know opinions and I will fix the patch accordingly.

I don't think we want to block your patch on this item. We can just do a
cleanup afterwards, rather than mixing it in with your patch.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to