----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com>
> To: "Miguel Angel" <miguelan...@ajo.es>
> Cc: dsull...@redhat.com, a...@ovirt.org, vdsm-de...@fedorahosted.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 2:35:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [vdsm] Smarter network_setup hooks
> 
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:34:24PM +0100, Miguel Angel wrote:
> > Hi Assaf, Thank you very much for the summary,
> > 
> > Just a few questions, there are things I don't understand yet:
> > 
> > 2014/1/8 Assaf Muller <amul...@redhat.com>
> > 
> > > Mid-thread summary:
> > >
> > > First some terminology so we're all on the same page:
> > > 'request' - The setupNetworks that just arrived
> > > 'running config' - If unified persistence is being used - All networking
> > > on the host as VDSM sees it
> > > 'expected' - If unified persistence is being used - The running config
> > > after the effects of the request, but before the hook is ran
> > >
> > >
> > correct
> > 
> > 
> > > I think we all agree that we have to expose the 'request' to the hook.
> > > However, there's two different approaches:
> > > 1) Allow the hook to rewrite parts of the request (For example, if two
> > > networks were sent, and the hook handled one of them, it could
> > >    then delete that network from the request, so VDSM will only continue
> > > to configure the 2nd network).
> > >
> > 
> > In this case ,if the hook deleted the "2nd network", VDSM couldn't handle
> > the network config persistence anymore, right?,
> 
> Right. If the before_network_setup hook decides to drop an item from the
> 'request', it means that neither following hooks, nor Vdsm proper, would
> see it. I find it as a useful and simple sematics: the hook practically
> says "I'm taking it from here", and from then on, it is repsonsible for
> everything. Implementation and persistence alike.
> 
> >
> > I didn't expect this use case, I only expected tweaks, etc (before or after
> > network setup), for example, setting special hardware
> > capabilities using ethtool or those kind of things.
> 
> Neither have I expected this. But it's a powerful tool that's relatively
> easy to implement.
> 
> >
> > > 2) Toni's idea with marking devices as hook-configured. So if a network
> > > is
> > > over a bridge over a VLAN over a bond over three NICs, hooks
> > >    could configure only the NICs (For example) and VDSM would configure
> > > the rest, whereas the first idea means that the hook would
> > >    have to configure the entire network (Bridge, VLANs, bonds, and all 3
> > > NICs) and then remove that network from the request.
> > >    The disadvantage of this method is that it would be harder to
> > > implement, and have references to the hooks flag throughout all of VDSM.
> > >
> > >
> > You mean that if the hook marked a certain device as "hook handled" then,
> > VDSM would just keep this information along with
> > the network config, etc... and won't do any setup, just config-keeping,
> > right?
> 
> That's my understanding, too. And I share the feeling that this is error
> prone: Vdsm sees the config, but must remember that it should not touch
> it or act upon it.
> 
> > > Then there's the matter of IF to expose the 'running config' and
> > > 'expected'.
> > >
> > > My main argument is that it's very easy to expose to the hooks (But then
> > > why not expose other 'random' data that is easy for VDSM to calculate?),
> > > and that we don't understand all usages for the setupNetworks hooks. I'd
> > > rather we expose too much information than not enough and screw
> > > over hook writers.
> > >
> > >
> > We have something important here, the hooks don't need to be
> > python-written, they could be bash scripts, or any other thing...
> > that means that they wouldn't have access to get "running config", but they
> > could calculate "expected".
> >
> > So, my vote here goes for "request" + "running config".
> >
> 
> The "running config" is accessible to any process, albeit not in its
> Vdsm representation. All the information is available if you do `ip a`
> and `virsh net-list`.
> 
> I do not imagine why a hook would need the "running config"; If it does
> end up needing it, it could re-calculate it just as Vdsm does. Passing
> this as argument to each hook script is a premature optimization imho.
> 
> If I end up wrong, it would not be hard to add the "running config" to
> the Vdsm/hook API. Removing something from an API is a much harder
> task.
> 
> My vote goes to only "request".

Only "request" for me too.
> 
> > 
> > > Either way, let's get some votes in a timely manner so we could manage to
> > > implement this for 3.4.
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks Assaf! ;)
> _______________________________________________
> vdsm-devel mailing list
> vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
> 
_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to