| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-04-03 | |||
| 10:58:37 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Fix unit tests to work with new oslo.config https://review.openstack.org/558084 | |
| 11:11:08 | openstackgerrit | Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Update the cells FAQs and scheduler maintenance docs. https://review.openstack.org/556459 | |
| 11:11:08 | openstackgerrit | Surya Seetharaman proposed openstack/nova master: Add --enable and --disable options to nova-manage update_cell https://review.openstack.org/555416 | |
| 11:54:25 | openstackgerrit | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Move create_tap_dev to the new utility method. https://review.openstack.org/557835 | |
| 11:54:26 | openstackgerrit | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova master: Move set_vf_interface_vlan to the new utility module. https://review.openstack.org/558487 | |
| 12:03:03 | jaypipes | sean-k-mooney[m]: I have no issues with that at all. I think it would be great. | |
| 12:12:44 | bauzas | sahid: soft -1 for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511188/ for asking you to be clear about all the possible values for the new option that you're going to add | |
| 12:13:02 | bauzas | sahid: once you're done, ping me and jaypipes and then I'll review it quickly | |
| 12:20:50 | alex_xu_ | jaypipes: dansmith fried_bunny edleafe bauzas, good morning, Sundar has a summary for the fpga based on our previous discussion at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Cyborg-Nova-Multifunction, he is looking for some review and feedback | |
| 12:21:11 | johnthetubaguy | stephenfin: would be great if you could double check my thinking on this runway patch: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552242 | |
| 12:22:37 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Parse forbidden traits in query strings https://review.openstack.org/556819 | |
| 12:22:37 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Filter allocation candidates by forbidden traits in db https://review.openstack.org/556660 | |
| 12:22:38 | openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/nova master: [placement] Support forbidden traits in API https://review.openstack.org/556820 | |
| 12:24:43 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: add mtu to libvirt xml for ethernet and bridge types https://review.openstack.org/553072 | |
| 12:25:52 | sean-k-mooney[m] | sahid: stephenfin added teh extra unit tests to ^ and rebased it against master. otherwise its the same as the previous version. | |
| 12:34:20 | fried_bunny | alex_xu_: Roger that; it's been on my list. | |
| 12:34:41 | alex_xu_ | fried_bunny: thanks | |
| 12:35:35 | efried | The pagan rites of spring are over. | |
| 12:44:38 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Hi there; was AFK. Will answer on the review, but to answer your question here: | |
| 12:45:10 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: For 'host-model' + PCID doesn't make sense in this case — If QEMU already supports PCID, it would be enabled by 'host-model'. And if it is not supported, adding it doesn't make it magically appear :-) | |
| 12:45:16 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Does the above answer you? | |
| 12:49:23 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: We logged a warning, instead of an _exception_ due to the prior discussion on the review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/534384/20/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py | |
| 12:56:08 | bhagyashris | johnthetubaguy, alex_xu_, melwitt: Hi, addressed review comments could you please review the same https://review.openstack.org/#/c/511825/ thank you :) | |
| 12:58:37 | kashyap | stephenfin: Hey there, so ... some OCD discussion on captialization: | |
| 12:58:59 | kashyap | stephenfin: On your comment here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/534384/22/nova/conf/libvirt.py@568 | |
| 12:59:29 | alex_xu_ | bhagyashris: johnthetubaguy melwitt, good to have agreement on this first http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-March/128914.html | |
| 12:59:46 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: I got the impression host model had PCID missing put the CPU might still support it? | |
| 12:59:49 | kashyap | stephenfin: My rule to capitalize the sentence following a colon: if there is just _one_ sentence after colon, use lower case; otherwise upper case. | |
| 13:00:19 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: maybe we should add a TODO to raise once its not a backport? | |
| 13:00:21 | kashyap | stephenfin: Hope that make sense? | |
| 13:00:24 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Hi | |
| 13:01:00 | stephenfin | kashyap: Fine by me. That should have been preceded by 'nit'. Does seem it's purely stylistic too (which I didn't know) https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-after-colons/ | |
| 13:01:11 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: No-no: With `host-model`, *if* you have the updated microcode, guest/host kernel, QEMU and libvirt, then libvirt will do the Right Thing. | |
| 13:01:34 | kashyap | stephenfin: No worries, I enjoy the English nit-picks. :-) | |
| 13:02:35 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: ah, good. I got the wrong end of the stick about that bit then. | |
| 13:02:36 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: After the backports are done -- we will remove the restriction on 'host-model' | |
| 13:02:56 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: No worries; can you please add a follow-up comment on the review, so that we're on the same line, same word? :-) | |
| 13:02:59 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: so I think you need to set the extra_flags to None when you log the warning? | |
| 13:03:08 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: That's the other bit | |
| 13:03:12 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: I think you're right there | |
| 13:03:31 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: no worries, I think we are in sync then, I added a follow up comment | |
| 13:03:57 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: sorry this is dragging on, tricky to get the right balance and make it backportable, it turns out | |
| 13:04:28 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: I first actually raised an exception, and then Matt and Dan came along saying: maybe a warning is less "heavy-handed" | |
| 13:04:31 | stephenfin | johnthetubaguy: Ack on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552242/ | |
| 13:04:43 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney[m]: Looking | |
| 13:04:44 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: yeah, for the backport its a good idea | |
| 13:04:47 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Yeah, would like to get this rid of my plate; getting a bit too much of it. But yes, it's a tricky change with right balance | |
| 13:05:03 | kashyap | s/with right balance/that needs the right balance/ | |
| 13:05:20 | johnthetubaguy | stephenfin: thanks, wanted to make sure I didn't just misread it an wait for mikal to wake up after I sign off for the day. | |
| 13:06:50 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: On your other question about 'host-passthrough': Yes, it is invalid. As libvirt wouldn't mangle anything, and if the CPU has it, libvirt will pass it right through to the guest. | |
| 13:06:51 | jaypipes | efried: I'm happy to do a hangout about the consumer generation today if you need to. | |
| 13:07:08 | efried | jaypipes: Is there email I need to catch up on first? | |
| 13:07:09 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: To summarize, I'll quickly add: the 'extra_flags = None', before the warning. | |
| 13:07:37 | jaypipes | efried: no, just saying I left things yesterday afternoon in a bit of a "too tired to talk about this right now" state. | |
| 13:08:09 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: yeah, +1 | |
| 13:08:21 | efried | jaypipes: Okay. The open issue is whether we should change the responses to PUT /alloc/{c} and POST /alloc from 204 No Content to 200 with payload. | |
| 13:08:26 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Thanks for the eagle eyes. | |
| 13:10:41 | jaypipes | efried: ok, I will answer that on the spec if that's what you prefer. | |
| 13:11:02 | efried | jaypipes: wfm, unless it needs back-and-forth. | |
| 13:11:12 | efried | cdent: Wouldn't mind an opinion from you as well. | |
| 13:11:35 | efried | cdent: oh, looks like you rendered one. Reading... | |
| 13:12:01 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Hmm, isn't it a bit "dirty" that we're quietly setting it to 'extra_flags' to None? Or is the onus is on the Operator to read the docs to see exactly what is valid? | |
| 13:12:33 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: its not great, but I think we just change this to a raise in the follow on patch that isn't backported | |
| 13:13:25 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: so it comes from our usual backport rules that mean no new config options or features, etc | |
| 13:17:20 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: Raise an "error" you mean? | |
| 13:17:26 | kashyap | johnthetubaguy: (In a follow-up.) | |
| 13:17:43 | kashyap | Okay, noted. | |
| 13:30:13 | kashyap | stephenfin: Hmm, what is the alternative then, just don't indent it?: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/534384/22/nova/conf/libvirt.py@539 | |
| 13:30:31 | stephenfin | kashyap: Correct | |
| 13:31:07 | stephenfin | You indent subsequent lines of the same bullet point, but the bullet points themselves should not be indented | |
| 13:32:59 | kashyap | stephenfin: Okido; like it is for the disk cache modes. | |
| 13:33:03 | kashyap | Thanks | |
| 13:36:08 | kashyap | stephenfin: Just a quick note: I'm using the back ticks for the lower-cased ``pcid``, and for the rest, with upper-cased 'PCID' (leaving it as is) | |
| 13:36:15 | kashyap | That fine with you? | |
| 13:36:25 | stephenfin | kashyap: a-ok by me, yup :) | |
| 13:36:59 | kashyap | :-) One upper-case ``PCID`` (because that is talking about valid config value) | |
| 13:37:07 | kashyap | Thanks! | |
| 13:40:54 | kashyap | stephenfin: johnthetubaguy: Before I upload yet-another version, mind having a quick gander: http://paste.openstack.org/show/718287/ | |
| 13:41:12 | kashyap | Or is it hard to read, without colours? (Can understand if so.) | |
| 13:41:38 | openstackgerrit | Mark Goddard proposed openstack/nova master: Include only required fields in ironic node cache https://review.openstack.org/539508 | |
| 13:42:30 | kashyap | Also add the "Related options" section | |
| 13:42:56 | johnthetubaguy | kashyap: probably easier in context, but that looks about right | |
| 13:43:52 | kashyap | Yeah; will post a patch in a min | |
| 13:44:31 | openstackgerrit | Mark Goddard proposed openstack/nova master: Request only instance_uuid in ironic node list https://review.openstack.org/539509 | |
| 13:46:00 | jaypipes | cdent, efried, edleafe: k, commented on the consumer generation spec. | |
| 13:46:07 | efried | jaypipes: ack, thx | |
| 13:46:16 | jaypipes | cdent, efried, edleafe: in short, I don't believe much change is needed from the spec at all. | |
| 13:47:15 | edleafe | jaypipes: thx | |
| 13:47:52 | edleafe | jaypipes: why do you think we shouldn't require sending the consumer gen on a PUT? | |
| 13:47:55 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: network: update pci request spec to handle trusted tags https://review.openstack.org/458820 | |
| 13:47:55 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: network: add command to configure trusted mode for VFs https://review.openstack.org/458513 | |
| 13:47:56 | openstackgerrit | sahid proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: configure trust mode for vfs https://review.openstack.org/458514 | |
| 13:48:03 | edleafe | jaypipes: How else could it detect a conflict? | |
| 13:48:44 | efried | edleafe: He's suggesting PUT should *always* 409 if the consumer exists. | |
| 13:48:46 | jaypipes | edleafe: see my response. I believe that for PUT /allocations/{consumer_uuid}, if *any* allocations exist for a consumer with {consumer_uuid}, we should simply return 409 Conflict | |
| 13:49:06 | efried | I.e. PUT is only for first-time create; POST is for modify. | |
| 13:49:09 | cdent | that's a huge change jaypipes | |
| 13:49:29 | cdent | POST exists explicitly for multiple consumers | |
| 13:49:39 | efried | jaypipes: Also, we would still need to support create-via-POST. | |
| 13:49:40 | edleafe | yeah, not for a single consumer | |