> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com] > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 4:07 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER > > That's a good point about the "managed" property being storable in the > storage_pool_details table. We don't need another column for it in the > storage_pool table. In the current url field is where this kind of information > can be passed along and it can be stored in the storage_pool_details table, if > the plug-in wants to do so.
+1. CreateStoragePoolCmd->details field is the place to pass extra info about a storage pool to storage provider. > > Let's decide on how the hypervisor code should operate, though. Should we > pass in info to the "attach" command to have it create an SR if need be? > This is sort of how I did it in the patch code I submitted (but I used the > StoragePoolType.Dynamic field, which we don't have to use). Master branch doesn't carry a VolumeTO in attach command, which means, there is no place for storage provider to pass down some extra info to hypervisor resource. While on object_store branch, it has the place to hook up with storage provider. So there are two options: 1. Use your StoragePoolType.Dynamic as it is, and merge into master branch. After your patch is merged, and also object_store branch is merged, then we can remove StoragePoolType.Dynamic totally. 2. Rebase your patch on object_store branch, merge your patch after object_store. It will take extra time for you, I don't think it's worth the effort though, as I can consolidate your patch with object_store during object_store merge into master. So I'd prefer option 1, as you only did few line of changes on the mgt server common code(regardless of iops), it should be easy for me to consolidate your patch with object_store branch.
