On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:32:34PM -0500, Antoni Segura Puimedon wrote:
> Hi list!
> 
> We are working on the new 3.2 feature for adding support for updating VM
> devices, more specifically at the moment network devices.
> 
> There is one point of the design which is not yet consensual and we'd 
> need to agree on a proper and clean design that would satisfy us all:
> 
> My current proposal, as reflected by patch:
>    http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/9560/5/vdsm_api/vdsmapi-schema.json
> and its parent is to have a linkActive boolean that is true for link
> status 'up' and false for link status 'down'.
> 
> We want to support a none (dummy) network that is used to dissociate vnics
> from any real network. The semantics, as you can see in the patch are that
> unless you specify a network, updateDevice will place the interface on that
> network. However, Adam Litke argues that not specifying a network should
> keep the vnic on the network it currently is, as network is an optional
> parameter and 'linkActive' is also optional and has this "preserve current
> state" semantics.
> 
> I can certainly see the merit of what Adam proposes, and the implementation
> would be that linkActive becomes an enum like so:
> 
> {'enum': 'linkState'/* or linkActive */ , 'data': ['up', 'down', 
> 'disconnected']}
> 
> With this change, network would only be changed if one different than the 
> current
> one is specified and the vnic would be taken to the dummy bridge when the 
> linkState
> would be set to 'disconnected'.
> 
> There is also an objection, raised by Adam about the semantics of 
> portMirroring.
> The current behavior from my patch is:
> 
> portMirroring is None or is not set -> No action taken.
> portMirroring = [] -> No action taken.
> portMirroring = [a,b,z] -> Set port mirroring for nets a,b and z to the 
> specified vnic.
> 
> His proposal is:
> portMirroring is None or is not set -> No action taken.
> portMirroring = [] -> Unset port mirroring to the vnic that is currently set.
> portMirroring = [a,b,z] -> Set port mirroring for nets a,b and z to the 
> specified vnic.
> 
> I would really welcome comments on this to have finally an agreement to the 
> api for this
> feature.

+1 to the updated proposal.  Is there any better way to do it?

-- 
Adam Litke <a...@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to