Dan, your arguments conviced me,
changing my vote to "request" only.

---
irc: ajo / mangelajo
Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
+34 636 52 25 69
skype: ajoajoajo


2014/1/9 Antoni Segura Puimedon <asegu...@redhat.com>

>
>
> ----- 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