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