On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:57:03AM +0100, Guido Trotter wrote: >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:23:52AM +0100, Guido Trotter wrote: >> >> From: Adeodato Simo <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> The list of all hypervisor parameters has to be computed in >> >> LUClusterVerifyGroup, since it needs to be passed to nodes as >> >> NV_HVPARAMS. However, it is better only to verify said parameters once, >> >> out of LUClusterVerifyConfig. >> > >> > "Out of" as "in"? >> > >> >> Guess so. >> >> > I wonder if it's possible to misuse this if we'll ever only run verify a >> > single group, and errors that would've been caught by the syntax checks >> > will only be reported via the node. >> > >> >> I'm not sure I follow here. You mean: if we only verify a single group >> at a time we could miss errors? > > Not necessarily miss, but rather that we get much stranger messages from > HV live validation, when the error would be much clearer at syntax > level. > >> Maybe we should have a "verify config but NO groups" option, what do you >> think? > > That doesn't sound bad at all. The verify config option could be very > fast and run more often maybe. >
Will do (probably monday). :) Thanks, Guido
