STOR-2682: option to recreate LSO symlinks

[dobsonj]

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/STOR-2682

/cc @openshift/storage

[openshift-ci-robot]

@dobsonj: This pull request references STOR-2682 which is a valid jira issue.

In response to this:

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/STOR-2682

/cc @openshift/storage

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci]

@dobsonj: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: openshift/storage.

Note that only openshift members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/STOR-2682

/cc @openshift/storage

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign pacevedom for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[dobsonj]

/label tide/merge-method-squash

[openshift-ci]

@dobsonj: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[gnufied]

Was thinking some more about this and I think having a dedicated API for linking specific PVs to specific devices may be more future proof. The v1alpha1 API I was thinking is:

type DeviceLink struct {
	metav1.TypeMeta `json:",inline"`
	// has OwnerRef set to LocalVolume or LocalVolumeSet object
	metav1.ObjectMeta `json:"metadata,omitempty"`
	Spec              DeviceLinkSpec   `json:"spec,omitempty"`
	Status            DeviceLinkStatus `json:"status,omitempty"`
}

type DeviceLinkSpec struct {
	PVName           string `json:"pvName"`
	DeviceLinkPolicy string `json:"deviceLinkPolicy"`
	//+required
	LVSetName string `json:"lvset"`
}

This will give us following things:

1. A persistent store of user's intent.
2. Better error reporting if something doesn't work. Better reporting of success and failure both infact.
3. More future proofing in terms of allowing users to target specific devices via regular expressions or direct symlinks.
4. Better API for targetting specific PV or range of PVs.

@jsafrane what do you think? Spoke briefly with @dobsonj yesterday, but the problem is 4.21 timeline...