On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:32:58PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 03.08.2017 um 15:24 hat Manos Pitsidianakis geschrieben:On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:07:50AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 31.07.2017 um 11:54 hat Manos Pitsidianakis geschrieben: > > Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis <el13...@mail.ntua.gr> > > I would add at least two more cases: > > * Both limits and throttle-group are given in blockdev-add This exists in the "property changes in ThrottleGroup" section,You're right, I missed this. The test result shows that this command succeeds. Do we really want to allow other nodes to be affected with a blockdev-add? Wouldn't it be cleaner to just forbid the combination of limits and throtte-group?
So basically only anonymous, immutable groups can be created through the driver then. All other shared group configurations must be explicitly created with an -object / object-add syntax. I think this is a neat separation and compromise if we allow anonymous groups. If not, we can ignore limits on the throttle driver.
> * limits and throttle-group are both missing this creates an anonymous group with no limits. Should we fail at this case?I'm not sure, you could argue either way. But there should be a test to check that the semantics won't change. If we're going with Stefan's suggestion that anonymous groups shouldn't exist, then the question is moot anyway.> It would also be nice to test that query-block reflects the new throttle > group limits correctly when they are changed after the fact. This belongs to the remove legacy patch, since query-block displays the legacy limits.Ok, fair enough. Kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature