[openstack-dev] [nova] Revert "objects: introduce numa topology limits objects"

Nikola Đipanov ndipanov at redhat.com
Tue Mar 24 11:45:53 UTC 2015

On 03/23/2015 02:06 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> I am really sorry it got in as I have -1ed it several times for the same
>> reason (I _really_ hate using the -2 hammer - we're all adults here
>> after all).
> I guess that I should take some blame as a reviewer on that patch, but
> only after this mail do I read some of your comments as fundamentally
> opposed. The one that really articulates it wasn't a new vote so it
> stood out even less. IMHO, -2 is precisely for "This shouldn't land as
> it is" so would have been completely appropriate for this situation.
> It's a meaningful signal and has nothing to do with the age of the
> participants.
>> My reasoning for it is quite simple and is outlined in the revert patch
>> commit message:
>>   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166767/
>> The reason for bringing this up on the email thread is that as a result
>> we need to downgrade the RPC that has technically been released (k-3).
>> Let me know what you think.
> I don't think we should revert it. Doing so will be quite messy. I think
> we have a couple of options:
> 1. Leave it as-is. Especially since we are able to synthesize the old
> call when necessary, it seems clear that we haven't lost any information
> here. We deal with it, roll forward and fix it in L.
> 2. We add to the object, essentially deprecating the ratio fields that
> you feel are problematic, and pass the data that you really want. That
> way we have a small window of compatibility that we can drop after we
> snap kilo.
> #1 requires no work now, but more work later; #2 requires quite a bit of
> work now, which might be scary, but makes life easier in the long run.
> Given where we are, and since I don't really see this as a
> sky-is-falling sort of thing, I think I'd err on the side of caution and
> go with #1. A flat-out revert either requires us to ban an RPC version
> (something we've never done, AFAIK) or just flat out roll back time and
> pretend it never happened.

Thanks for taking a look.

Yes, agreed - it is probably better to focus on actual bugs that impact
customers at this point.

I will abandon the reverts, and work on proposing the fix-up for L.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list