Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2017-12-04
18:11:17 mriedem i will go through test changes after lunch
18:15:34 edleafe mriedem: a follow-up is fine.
18:26:39 openstackgerrit Merged openstack/nova master: XenAPI: get vGPU stats from hypervisor https://review.openstack.org/512965
19:43:12 efried stephenfin That's a cool tip, thanks. I doubt it would be considered a "bug" since you're effectively hacking a metadata marker tox uses internally for exactly that purpose.
19:59:44 mriedem edleafe: ok, found a few more missing tests in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510159/
19:59:52 mriedem edleafe: should probably just add those in there rather than a follow up
20:00:04 mriedem the comment updates could all be done in a follow up
20:07:17 mriedem moving onto the next change in the series
20:12:50 efried edleafe jaypipes What about uuid_iter() ? (And make it an iterable)
20:13:30 efried Ah, I think I remember why I didn't do that originally - don't want the caller holding (and possibly abandoning) the lock.
20:20:09 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: ProviderTree.get_provider_uuids() https://review.openstack.org/520243
20:20:16 efried edleafe jaypipes ^
20:28:28 edleafe mriedem: if I have to change that patch, might as well do 'em all there.
20:30:14 jaypipes efried: +2 from me. nice.
20:30:25 efried jaypipes Thanks
20:30:25 mriedem edleafe: well, if you're going to update all of those comments,
20:30:41 jaypipes efried: though you didn't update the make _provider really private patch.
20:30:45 mriedem you should then do that in the change earlier in the series that actually makes the scheduler drivers return Selection objects back up to the SchedulerManager
20:30:54 efried jaypipes Uh, was I supposed to?
20:31:14 jaypipes efried: nah, just figured you would... rebase the entire thing to get em up to the same rev
20:31:38 jaypipes efried: since gerrit shows the get_provider_uuids() based on an old rev of the dep patch
20:31:38 efried jaypipes Hum, that's weird; I wouldn't have thought I needed to do that.
20:31:43 efried yeah - why?
20:31:49 efried I rebased both of 'em earlier.
20:31:50 mriedem edleafe: specifically https://review.openstack.org/#/c/495854/ made the comments invalid
20:32:00 mriedem https://review.openstack.org/#/c/510159/ just needs more tests
20:32:16 edleafe mriedem: ok
20:32:22 efried jaypipes ohh, I know what happened.
20:32:23 mriedem edleafe: comments in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/516707/ too - i think we need to not touch anything in the compute manager/claims/RT code there in that patch
20:32:35 efried I manually edited two characters in the commit message of the bottom patch.
20:33:11 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: ProviderTree.get_provider_uuids() https://review.openstack.org/520243
20:33:27 efried jaypipes ^ simple rebase from gerrit, kept your +2. Thanks for pointing it out.
20:36:12 jaypipes efried: coolio.
20:40:39 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Fix cellsv1 messaging test https://review.openstack.org/525304
20:40:39 openstackgerrit Dan Smith proposed openstack/nova master: Fix cellsv1 build request deletion if multiple api databases are used https://review.openstack.org/523187
20:41:07 efried dansmith Got some review bandwidth for these two? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/523932/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/520243/ They're pretty simple.
20:41:49 dansmith efried: no, and also, you're doing it wrong
20:42:01 efried Well, that figures. What am I doing wrong?
20:42:11 dansmith efried: acting like I have review bandwidth will never work.. playing to my guilt usually will
20:42:15 dansmith watch and learn:
20:42:48 dansmith dansmith: you haven't reviewed any of my patches in a while and I'm starting to feel like you're a bad person. prove me wrong and review these easy ones I have selected for you...
20:43:00 efried okay, let me give that a try:
20:43:15 mriedem edleafe: some comments that can be updated in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511357/ when you update the series
20:43:36 efried dansmith: reviewing these simple patches will not only further the cause of Very Important blueprints, it will make you more handsome and popular.
20:43:50 dansmith efried: weak, but passable
20:43:57 efried Dangit, yeah, there's almost no guilt in there at all.
20:44:12 dansmith but it plays to other things that work for me, so..
20:44:37 mriedem passive aggressive works too
20:44:57 efried Like this: dansmith I think it's great how much time you have for cells stuff.
20:45:05 mriedem no
20:45:09 efried damn
20:45:13 efried I really suck at this.
20:45:16 dansmith yeah, that just makes me mad :)
20:45:21 mriedem heh, yeah :)
20:45:24 dansmith lol
20:45:35 mriedem you need to be a true midwesterner to master passive aggressive
20:45:58 efried My in-laws are from Wisconsin. That's as close as I can come.
20:46:41 mriedem psh, wisconsin
20:46:43 efried If I had my mother in law asking, it would be like, "dansmith, it's okay if you don't want to review my patches; I'll be dead soon and then it won't matter".
20:46:45 mriedem cheese heads
20:46:48 mriedem and serial killers
20:46:56 mriedem efried: that's more like it
20:47:02 dansmith yeah, getting there
20:54:22 cfriesen is it a bug that "nova quota-show" has "injected_file_path_bytes" but "nova limits" doesn't have an equivalent entry?
20:54:58 mriedem cfriesen: meh
20:55:12 mriedem isn't that maxPersonalitySize?
20:56:03 cfriesen So I see "Personality" and "Personality Size" in limits (in Newton) but for quotas I see injected_files/injected_file_content_bytes/injected_file_path_bytes
20:57:09 clutchbeyers looking to achieve some type of multi tenancy exclusive isolation on host aggregates, I noticed there were some blueprints that were abandoned. Is anyone aware of any work being done or other mechanism to exclude tenants to an aggregate or global filter that wont provision a tenant to an aggregate that doesnt have such filter meta set?
20:58:31 melwitt cfriesen: did it use to show it in 'nova limits' but doesn't anymore? if so, that's a bug
20:59:06 melwitt oh, newton. then not a bug. quota rewriting didn't happen until pike
21:00:07 melwitt or rather, not a regression. one could argue whether it's a bug in general
21:00:21 cfriesen melwitt: okay, will be upgrading soon.
21:00:38 cfriesen why do we have both APIs anyway?
21:00:49 openstackgerrit Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova stable/ocata: Proper error handling by _ensure_resource_provider https://review.openstack.org/525309
21:01:02 cfriesen qutoa and limits I mean
21:01:03 efried mriedem ^ There's that cherry-pick. That was a pretty fun merge.
21:01:04 melwitt that, I don't know
21:01:25 cfriesen okay, thanks
21:02:19 mriedem cfriesen: i'd bet it was likely due to v2.0 api extension stuff
21:04:35 mriedem clutchbeyers: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/381912/
21:05:04 mriedem clutchbeyers: no one is working on that
21:05:21 mriedem melwitt looked at something related recently, saying maybe it was a regression that we needed this anyway
21:05:59 melwitt I think that was the lack of counting keypairs for the used limits API. it always returns 0
21:09:14 openstack bugzilla.redhat.com bug 1435597 in openstack-nova "AggegateImagePropertiesIsolatefiler not working" [High,New] - Assigned to sbauza
21:09:14 melwitt this is the redhat bug where it's demonstrated to be a regression in mitaka https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435597
21:11:03 melwitt given that, I was a bit lost about how it got turned into a blueprint-required feature
21:11:43 melwitt I want to dig into it more to find out what actually happened back then
21:14:20 melwitt i.e. find what changed that made it stop working and whether it was intentional
21:15:57 melwitt I had done some looking while at the summit but didn't find anything yet
21:25:24 mriedem huh, how does this ever work?
21:25:25 mriedem https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/compute/manager.py#L6595
21:25:46 mriedem ah oh nvm
21:39:57 mikal mriedem: I commented on that bug, but mostly to say "you people confuse me"
21:40:06 mikal In other news, Amazon shopping just launched in my country
21:40:54 mriedem mikal: the perf one?
21:46:13 mikal Yep, https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1735663
21:46:15 openstack Launchpad bug 1735663 in OpenStack Compute (nova) "privsep.daemon takes 9 seconds during taking volume attaching operation" [Undecided,New]
21:47:44 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Get original image_id from volume for volume-backed instance rebuild https://review.openstack.org/521391
21:47:44 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test for rebuilding a volume-backed server https://review.openstack.org/521200
21:47:45 openstackgerrit Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Fail fast if changing image on a volume-backed server rebuild https://review.openstack.org/520660

Earlier   Later