On the Hyper-V side we are also interested in this feature as for example VHDX images are supported starting with Hyper-V Server 2012.
On the versioning convention, I don't see particular issues as long as the version ordering arithmetic works. Said that, I'd vote for a consistent numeric only a.b.c.d format across all drivers (e.g. major.minor.build.revision) as already suggested by John. On 07.08.2013, at 16:57, "John Garbutt" <j...@johngarbutt.com> wrote: > I guess this is the same issue we faced with the capabilities filters > and things, when drivers don't report stats in a consistent format. > > If we dictate the driver reports things in a standard format, it will > make our lives much easier, I think. > > Currently, some report their own format, and a few (not just libvirt) > use the libvirt format. It would seem better to report something more > standard like "a.b.c.d". But to be honest, I think consistency is the > key here. > > John > > On 7 August 2013 15:36, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 08/07/2013 10:14 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: >>> On 08/07/13 at 07:38am, Kaushik Chandrashekar wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> We are working on adding hypervisors version support for xen, >>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/xen-support-for-hypervisor-versions >>>> >>>> >>>> The initial design is, >>>> >>>> 1. The image would have a property with hypervisor version >>>> requirements, >>>> in this format '>=6.0,<6.2' >>>> 2. The host state manager would have the hypervisor version loaded in >>>> (6,0,1) format. >>>> 3. If the hypervisor versions are present in both of these, the >>>> image_props_filter would filter hypervisors based on them. >>>> >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36073/15/nova/scheduler/filters/image_props_filter.py >>>> >>>> >>>> We want to generalise this versioning for all hypervisors. So we are >>>> thinking of having "a.b.c.d" or (a, b, c ,d) as the version type where a, >>>> b, c, d are numbers. Do you see any hypervisors that have a different >>>> versioning format? >>> >>> Why do you want to generalize the versioning for all hypervisors? I'm >>> not sure I see the benefit versus using the version as reported by the >>> hypervisor. Especially since you're looking to compare against non >>> generalized versions based on your examples. >> >> I guess to ensure you can do comparison operations (<, >, etc)? >> >> -- >> Russell Bryant >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
