[ovirt-users] feature review - ReportGuestDisksLogicalDeviceName

[Liron Aravot]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Federico Simoncelli" <fsimonce at redhat.com>
> To: devel at ovirt.org
> Cc: "Liron Aravot" <laravot at redhat.com>, users at ovirt.org, smizrahi at redhat.com, "Michal Skrivanek"
> <mskrivan at redhat.com>, "Vinzenz Feenstra" <vfeenstr at redhat.com>, "Allon Mureinik" <amureini at redhat.com>, "Dan
> Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 12:50:28 PM
> Subject: Re: feature review - ReportGuestDisksLogicalDeviceName
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
> > To: "Liron Aravot" <laravot at redhat.com>
> > Cc: users at ovirt.org, devel at ovirt.org, smizrahi at redhat.com,
> > fsimonce at redhat.com, "Michal Skrivanek"
> > <mskrivan at redhat.com>, "Vinzenz Feenstra" <vfeenstr at redhat.com>, "Allon
> > Mureinik" <amureini at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 11:23:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: feature review - ReportGuestDisksLogicalDeviceName
> > 
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 07:20:04AM -0400, Liron Aravot wrote:
> > > Feel free to review the the following feature.
> > > 
> > > http://www.ovirt.org/Features/ReportGuestDisksLogicalDeviceName
> > 
> > Thanks for posting this feature page. Two things worry me about this
> > feature. The first is timing. It is not reasonable to suggest an API
> > change, and expect it to get to ovirt-3.5.0. We are two late anyway.
> > 
> > The other one is the suggested API. You suggest placing volatile and
> > optional infomation in getVMList. It won't be the first time that we
> > have it (guestIPs, guestFQDN, clientIP, and displayIP are there) but
> > it's foreign to the notion of "conf" reported by getVMList() - the set
> > of parameters needed to recreate the VM.

The fact is that today we return guest information in list(Full=true), We decide on it's notion
and it seems like we already made our minds when guest info was added there :) . I don't see any harm in returning the disk mapping there
and if we'll want to extract the guest info out, we can extract all of it in later version (4?) without need for BC. Having
the information spread between different verbs is no better imo.
> 
> At first sight this seems something belonging to getVmStats (which
> is reporting already other guest agent information).
> 

Fede, I've mentioned in the wiki, getVmStats is called by the engine every few seconds and therefore that info
wasn't added there but to list() which is called only when the hash is changed. If everyone is in for that simple
solution i'm fine with that, but Michal/Vincenz preferred it that way.

> Federico
>