[storage] [backend] Add Handle to BE object now #217
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -10,18 +10,23 @@ option java_outer_classname = "BackendNvmeTcpProto"; | |
|
|
||
| option go_package = "github.com/opiproject/opi-api/storage/v1alpha1/gen/go"; | ||
|
|
||
| import "google/protobuf/empty.proto"; | ||
| import "object_key.proto"; | ||
|
|
||
| // Back End (network-facing) APIs. NVMe/TCP and NVMe/RoCEv2 protocols are covered by this service. | ||
| service NVMfRemoteControllerService { | ||
| rpc NVMfRemoteControllerConnect (NVMfRemoteControllerConnectRequest) returns (NVMfRemoteController) {} | ||
| rpc NVMfRemoteControllerDisconnect (NVMfRemoteControllerDisconnectRequest) returns (google.protobuf.Empty) {} | ||
| rpc NVMfRemoteControllerReset (NVMfRemoteControllerResetRequest) returns (google.protobuf.Empty) {} | ||
| rpc NVMfRemoteControllerList (NVMfRemoteControllerListRequest) returns (NVMfRemoteControllerListResponse) {} | ||
| rpc NVMfRemoteControllerGet (NVMfRemoteControllerGetRequest) returns (NVMfRemoteController) {} | ||
| rpc NVMfRemoteControllerStats (NVMfRemoteControllerStatsRequest) returns (NVMfRemoteControllerStatsResponse) {} | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteController { | ||
| // object's unique identifier | ||
| common.v1.ObjectKey id = 1; | ||
|
|
||
| NvmeTransportType trtype = 2; | ||
| NvmeAddressFamily adrfam = 3; | ||
| string traddr = 4; | ||
|
|
@@ -39,49 +44,37 @@ message NVMfRemoteControllerConnectRequest { | |
| NVMfRemoteController ctrl = 1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteControllerDisconnectRequest { | ||
| // object's unique identifier | ||
| common.v1.ObjectKey id = 1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteControllerResetRequest { | ||
| // object's unique identifier | ||
| common.v1.ObjectKey id = 1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteControllerListRequest { | ||
| int32 page_size = 1; | ||
| string page_token = 2; | ||
| } | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. how are these related to this pr ? There was a problem hiding this comment. I could've split in 2 commits here, you are right. |
||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteControllerListResponse { | ||
| repeated NVMfRemoteController ctrl = 1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteControllerGetRequest { | ||
| // object's unique identifier | ||
| common.v1.ObjectKey id = 1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteControllerStatsRequest { | ||
| // object's unique identifier | ||
| common.v1.ObjectKey id = 1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message NVMfRemoteControllerStatsResponse { | ||
| string stats = 1; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| enum NvmeTransportType { | ||
|
|
||
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why not provide the objectKey here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good question. according to what we did in frontend, we put the ID inside the object, so I wanted to align those here as well. From https://google.aip.dev/133#user-specified-ids indeed IDs should be in the request message, not the object and named
string {resource}_id