On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:38 PM, Eric Fried <openstack@fried.cc> wrote:
Jay suggested extending the JSON schema to allow groups that are names like resources_compute, required_network. That might allow for some conventions to emerge but still requires some measure of knowledge from the participants.
I think this is a good idea to pursue, because it gives us a way to predefine (by convention) what the groups are called, as opposed to having them be automatically, arbitrarily, unpredictably numbered. It'll still break down in more complex scenarios where, say, there's more than one device_group with different affinity requirements; but it could work for the simpler setups.
I support this idea. Today The RequestGroup contains a requester_id field[1] to map the numbered group back to the neutron port (cyborg dev) it is originated from. If the group can be named instead of only numbered then this mapping can be encoded into the name of the group like resources_port_<port_uuid>. This would also made sure that name of the group is unique and more importantly it is stable (today we generate the number of the numbered group originated from neutron port) and that helps troubleshooting. Cheers, gibi [1]https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/ce5ef763b58cad09440e0da67733ce5780687...