| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-02-20 | |||
| 08:16:56 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Fill the RequestGroup mapping during schedule https://review.openstack.org/619528 | |
| 08:16:57 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Send RP uuid in the port binding https://review.openstack.org/569459 | |
| 08:16:57 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Recalculate request group - RP mapping during re-schedule https://review.openstack.org/619529 | |
| 08:16:58 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove port allocation during detach https://review.openstack.org/622421 | |
| 08:16:58 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test boot with more ports with bandwidth request https://review.openstack.org/573317 | |
| 08:16:59 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add pf_interface_name tag to passthrough_whitelist https://review.openstack.org/625311 | |
| 08:16:59 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Record requester in the InstancePCIRequest https://review.openstack.org/625310 | |
| 08:17:00 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Support server create with ports having resource request https://review.openstack.org/636360 | |
| 08:17:00 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure that bandwidth and VF are from the same PF https://review.openstack.org/623543 | |
| 08:17:01 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor _heal_allocations_for_instance (2) https://review.openstack.org/637954 | |
| 08:17:01 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor _heal_allocations_for_instance to make place for port healing https://review.openstack.org/637953 | |
| 08:17:02 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: heal port allocations https://review.openstack.org/637955 | |
| 08:41:36 | bauzas | good morning Nova | |
| 08:44:41 | gibi | good morning bauzas | |
| 08:45:14 | openstackgerrit | Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: WIP detach root volume API changes https://review.openstack.org/623981 | |
| 08:51:00 | bauzas | gibi: :-) | |
| 09:15:18 | openstackgerrit | Silvan Kaiser proposed openstack/nova master: Exec systemd-run without --user flag in Quobyte driver https://review.openstack.org/554195 | |
| 09:33:53 | openstackgerrit | Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: Adds the server group info into show server detail API. https://review.openstack.org/621474 | |
| 09:36:36 | openstackgerrit | Silvan Kaiser proposed openstack/nova master: Added mount fstype based validation of Quobyte mounts https://review.openstack.org/522245 | |
| 09:38:24 | kaisers | kaisers | |
| 09:39:09 | kaisers | *dang* missed out on the hotkey | |
| 09:40:00 | kaisers | stephenfin: Hi! Updated both CLs based on yesterdays feedback :) | |
| 09:40:10 | stephenfin | ack | |
| 09:48:42 | kashyap | gibi: The Zuul is -2 here because the parent patch is not merged yet? -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637152/ | |
| 09:51:53 | stephenfin | kaisers: +2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554195/ *but* I do have some comments that I'd really like to see addressed, if you have time. They're not blockers though | |
| 09:55:59 | kaisers | stephenfin: can be solved, np | |
| 09:57:54 | openstackgerrit | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add support for microversion v2.69 https://review.openstack.org/637234 | |
| 09:58:30 | openstackgerrit | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add support for microversion v2.70 https://review.openstack.org/637234 | |
| 09:58:45 | stephenfin | kaisers: Cool. Also +2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522245/ with two nice-to-have but not blocking nits | |
| 10:05:51 | stephenfin | Hmm, no gibi. How odd | |
| 10:06:14 | stephenfin | bauzas: You're next in line. Could you push this trivial follow up patch through? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636967 | |
| 10:06:52 | stephenfin | bauzas: Next in line for reviews and not for the throne, I'm afraid. They'd never accept a Frenchman for that | |
| 10:07:04 | stephenfin | ...unless the alternative was Boris Johnson, maybe | |
| 10:07:41 | bauzas | stephenfin: sorry I don't remember which trivial patch to push ? ;) | |
| 10:08:32 | bauzas | and well, for the throne, we had some history here about kings... | |
| 10:09:14 | stephenfin | My policy on trivial patches is pro having it and pro pushing it | |
| 10:09:50 | kashyap | stephenfin: Re-thinking is a bug really necessary here?: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637578/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py | |
| 10:10:05 | kashyap | s/Re-thinking/Re-thinking,/ | |
| 10:10:14 | bauzas | stephenfin: ah sorry, I misunderstood the "this" | |
| 10:10:20 | bauzas | stephenfin: but sure, yeah | |
| 10:11:00 | stephenfin | kashyap: How so? | |
| 10:11:22 | kashyap | stephenfin: This line: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637578/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py@4961 | |
| 10:11:41 | kashyap | stephenfin: Where you guessed a bug might be useful | |
| 10:12:15 | stephenfin | kashyap: I was referring to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637578/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py@4957 | |
| 10:12:36 | kashyap | Correct, I posted the wrong line | |
| 10:12:41 | stephenfin | Where we create a PTY device for non-QEMU/KVM, non-parallels hypervisors | |
| 10:13:12 | bauzas | stephenfin: I just +1d because I have a question | |
| 10:13:17 | bauzas | (even for a nit :p ) | |
| 10:13:37 | kashyap | stephenfin: Right, but the non-{QEMU/KVM, -Parellels} get a PTY device anyway. | |
| 10:14:15 | stephenfin | kashyap: Not previously though, right? Previously the 'if CONF.serial_console.enabled:' line in '_create_pty_device' would have stopped that happening | |
| 10:14:23 | kashyap | You want to capture that the existing code didn't create a serial device? | |
| 10:14:54 | kashyap | stephenfin: Previously too, according the existing table; and I checked with an s390x maintainer, too, FWIW | |
| 10:15:22 | stephenfin | kashyap: Assuming _that_ is the incorrect behavior, yes | |
| 10:15:53 | kashyap | Heh, what a maze; I'll see about what to file once I re-read the old code again. | |
| 10:15:55 | stephenfin | kashyap: To be completely clear, I don't know if it should have one or not. I'm going on Georg's comments | |
| 10:16:16 | kashyap | stephenfin: Georg says it's OK to not file one. | |
| 10:16:19 | stephenfin | What are the non-QEMU/KVM, non-Parallels libvirt drivers we support | |
| 10:16:21 | stephenfin | *? | |
| 10:16:26 | kashyap | stephenfin: zKVM | |
| 10:16:47 | kashyap | More accurately called "z/VM" I guess | |
| 10:17:55 | stephenfin | bauzas: Replied, but the answer is here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636627/1/nova/conf/base.py@29 | |
| 10:17:56 | kashyap | stephenfin: It is z/VM (ignore the zKVM bit) | |
| 10:18:52 | stephenfin | kashyap: I can get onboard with that, but I do think that we should have a test and call out the change in behavior in the commit message if there is no bug | |
| 10:19:21 | stephenfin | Otherwise we've got a change in behavior with no indication to future reviewers of the patch as to why that change happened | |
| 10:19:23 | kashyap | stephenfin: Yeah, that sounds reasonable. | |
| 10:19:58 | kashyap | I'm all for capturing the intention of a change as clearly as we can :-) | |
| 10:33:47 | gibi | bauzas: could you look at pike backport please? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603044 the original fix was merged on master when during the Queens cycle | |
| 10:34:01 | bauzas | gibi: ack | |
| 10:34:32 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: compute: Reject resize requests when the source host is down https://review.openstack.org/623489 | |
| 10:35:08 | gibi | bauzas: thanks | |
| 10:35:10 | openstackgerrit | Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: compute: Reject resize requests when the source host is down https://review.openstack.org/623489 | |
| 10:35:42 | lyarwood | mdbooth_: ^ dropped the ignore_forced_down stuff, lets see if anyone raises the LM use case I was talking about. | |
| 10:37:34 | bauzas | gibi: I have multiple concerns with the backport | |
| 10:38:35 | gibi | bauzas: the new config options? | |
| 10:41:16 | bauzas | gibi: lemme review a bit more before | |
| 10:45:10 | mdbooth | lyarwood: Yeah, that LM use case just sounds wrong to me. The other thing is that if a service is forced_down, anything which does a service check on it will return that it's down. That just seems really fragile to me, hence I wanted a functional test. | |
| 10:45:19 | mdbooth | ... if we were going to rely on it, that is. | |
| 10:55:38 | lyarwood | mdbooth: ack yeah that's fine and agreed it's odd that LM would even work with things forced_down tbh | |
| 10:57:48 | bauzas | gibi: commented now | |
| 11:00:41 | gibi | bauzas: thanks | |
| 11:01:52 | bauzas | gibi: i could have proposed my own revision, but given it's a new backport contributor, I prefer him to amend himself and correctly expain the diffs | |
| 11:01:59 | gibi | if the author doesn't fix what you asked then I can fixup that patch | |
| 11:02:22 | bauzas | gibi: ok cool, just keep an eye then | |
| 11:02:26 | gibi | bauzas: agree with your strategy | |
| 11:02:33 | gibi | bauzas: I will check back in a week | |
| 12:38:37 | Sundar | Hi gibi, please ping me if you are around | |
| 12:44:51 | gibi | Sundar: hi! | |
| 12:45:01 | gibi | Sundar: I also tried to talk to you in my morning | |
| 12:45:48 | gibi | Sundar: I saw that you updated the bottom of the bandwidth patch series | |
| 12:45:59 | gibi | Sundar: but I guess you used an old version of my patches | |
| 12:48:33 | openstackgerrit | Silvan Kaiser proposed openstack/nova master: Exec systemd-run without --user flag in Quobyte driver https://review.openstack.org/554195 | |
| 12:51:06 | Sundar | gibi: The patch series was rebased by Eric. It does seem like an older version. Sorry if it impacts your work. | |
| 12:51:44 | gibi | Sundar: I restored the latest content of my patches with an extra rebase couple of hours ago | |
| 12:51:48 | Sundar | gibi: I suppose the patch got updated after the rebase | |
| 12:51:53 | gibi | Sundar: so at the moment my patches are up-to-date | |
| 12:52:17 | gibi | Sundar: most probably I updated my patches after the last rebase of your patches | |
| 12:52:38 | gibi | Sundar: and when your patches was pushed up it changed my patche back to an old version | |
| 12:55:10 | Sundar | gibi: Any suggestions for keeping both in sync? | |
| 12:55:34 | Sundar | gibi: I mean, apart from manual rebasing periodically | |
| 12:57:20 | Sundar | gibi: Apologies again for using an older version | |