> On March 19, 2019, 2:42 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > src/csi/volume_manager.hpp
> > Lines 74-75 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/70213/diff/2/?file=2132465#file2132465line74>
> >
> > Do we have a chance here to translate from CSI semantics to our own semantics
instead of leaking the CSI protocol? I think not using a magic value of `0` would be nice.
> >
> > Seems like we could either return a `Failure` if `GET_CAPACITY` is not supported
or some `Option<Bytes>::none()`. This would likely require capability knowledge.
>
> Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> I'm actually debating if we should expose CSI capabilities. Given that the capabilities
might change, do you think it's a good idea to expose that?
>
> Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> Wouldn't they'd only be exposed in the documentation? We could replace that part
with _can permanently not be determined_ so we can use failed futures for retryable errors
and ready nones for the unsupported providers.
>
> Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> The caller, i.e., SLRP, won't know why it fails. If the plugin doesn't support `GET_CAPACITY`,
SLRP should still work with handling pre-existing volumes. So we either needs to expose the
capability to SLRP, or don't fail here.
Dropping this issue. See later patches in this chain for uses.
> On March 19, 2019, 2:42 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > src/csi/volume_manager.hpp
> > Lines 115-117 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/70213/diff/2/?file=2132465#file2132465line115>
> >
> > Am I reading correctly that the return boolean is not dynamic and just maps
onto whether the controller has `CREATE_DELETE_VOLUME` or not?
>
> Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> Yes you're right lol. This roughly matches the semantics defined here: https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/master/include/mesos/mesos.proto#L2102
>
> Again, not sure if we should expose the CSI capabilities instead. WDYT?
>
> Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> It would be nice to see how this would be used. Do you want to distinguish transient
from permanent failures, or would a `Future<Nothing>` work just as well?
Dropping this issue. See later patches in this chain for uses.
- Chun-Hung
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/70213/#review213806
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2019, 5:56 a.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/70213/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated March 27, 2019, 5:56 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Jie Yu, and Jan Schlicht.
>
>
> Bugs: MESOS-9622
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9622
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> `VolumeManager` is a wrapper for SLRP to use v0 and v1 CSI plugins
> polymorphically. It will be managing volume lifecycles and checkpoints
> and making the actual CSI calls for SLRP and SERP in the future.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/CMakeLists.txt 3397c3b1d4e8a7900b2e5f870679cc7aa30b4be2
> src/Makefile.am bcafe48b2105575371464a29783bc6f3f1c2cf8d
> src/csi/volume_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION
> src/csi/volume_manager.cpp PRE-CREATION
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70213/diff/3/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chun-Hung Hsiao
>
>
|