[Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version

[Laszlo Hornyak]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> > To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:59:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
> > > To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 8:36:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 7:18:59 PM
> > > > Subject: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I uploaded a new version of the watchdog patch. This patch is
> > > > still
> > > > a
> > > > work in progress, it adds audit log alerts to the
> > > > functionality.
> > > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/12419/
> > > > 
> > > > Feature page:
> > > > http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Watchdog_engine_support
> > > > 
> > > > Laszlo
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Engine-devel mailing list
> > > > Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > i looked at the patch and there is something i don't understand,
> > > i see you are treating the watchdog as a vm device, which is
> > > great,
> > > so why do we need to save the device details in vm_static table
> > > in
> > > addition to the vm_devices?
> > > i think its even not used at all (only setting the device in
> > > command
> > > which could be parameters, no need to persist)
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Omer,
> > 
> > Thanks, I hoped someone will come up with that question :) The
> > answer
> > is that I followed the established design patterns in the backend.
> > See smartcard and memory balloon, probably others. The motivation
> > for this pattern could be that in case of these devices, you must
> > have the settings in the VM data, not separately in the devices.
> > Also when vdsbroker builds the devices list, it just asks the
> > device
> > list. The redundancy is already there, we can make it differently
> > in
> > this case but that will present the readers with a puzzle: why this
> > pattern in feature X, why that pattern in feature Y...
> > So I would recommend to leave it like this for now and schedule a
> > cleanup on device handling. Devices deserve a cleanup.
> > 
> > Thx,
> > Laszlo
> > 
> 
> i agree there is a mess that requires clean-up,
> but i don't think its a good thing to keep piling up the mess,
> i don't like it that smartcard is there, but some other devices are
> ok (balloon and payload)
> so we already have 2 'patterns', lets go with the right one..
> and answering also @Doron's question - yes the device data should be
> kept with the device
> 

Ok, I may have missed the other pattern, could you explain which one do you mean?
Balloon does not very different from smartcard, it is there in VM.