| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-08-29 | |||
| 11:30:38 | aspiers | kashyap: I understand why you used features first time around. But if I was being pedantic (and I am, because that's what I do), none of "type" / "yes" / "no" are (conceptual) features, whereas they *are* parts of enumerations of allowed components in a schema. | |
| 11:30:40 | kashyap | I "hearby order" the unit tests to succeed | |
| 11:30:45 | aspiers | Hehe | |
| 11:31:00 | kashyap | [No? You won't budge? Okay, I'll fix it :D] | |
| 11:32:36 | brinzhang | Who can review https://review.opendev.org/#/c/665136/ Specifying AZ to unshelve the server, already +2 by Matt. | |
| 11:32:43 | kashyap | aspiers: Okay, you saw why I did. And yes, I agree with the pedantry and renaming is the Right Thing. In future, too, don't hesitate to think out loud and persist that way. Appreciate it | |
| 11:33:11 | brinzhang | Today is the deadline in runway, thanks :P | |
| 11:43:27 | sean-k-mooney | i didnt know we used runways for nova clinent review but i guess that makes sense | |
| 11:47:00 | brinzhang | beacuse of it belongs to the bp, does need to remove the part of the bp with novaclient or openstackclient patch? | |
| 11:48:43 | sean-k-mooney | brinzhang: no its fine | |
| 11:49:21 | sean-k-mooney | its just most people dont get around to doing the client update when they add an new api | |
| 11:50:29 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: yeah, IMO, they belong to the same part of nova and will only reset the bp state if they are all completed, so I add the novalient and OSC | |
| 11:51:15 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: If anyone canot necessary, I can remove it from the runway, reduce the work for reviewer :P | |
| 11:51:49 | sean-k-mooney | the patch is close so i would leave it | |
| 11:52:06 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: can are you core on nova-client | |
| 11:53:08 | sean-k-mooney | yep nova-core is in the group | |
| 11:53:17 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/665136/ is short | |
| 11:53:22 | brinzhang | Yeah | |
| 11:53:53 | sean-k-mooney | when you get back form luch that is | |
| 11:54:23 | brinzhang | nova-core has the +1 W permission for novaclient | |
| 11:55:27 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: Oh, no, I will go home, maybe tomorrow can see it :) | |
| 11:55:41 | brinzhang | sean-k-mooney: Thanks again. | |
| 11:58:26 | kashyap | aspiers: Hey, before I hit `git review`, you cool with this additional 'diff' for tests? -- http://paste.openstack.org/show/766973/ | |
| 11:58:47 | kashyap | (The multiple entries are for different arches...) | |
| 12:04:18 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: do all those arch support it | |
| 12:04:38 | sean-k-mooney | the current static data was taken form vrish | |
| 12:05:06 | sean-k-mooney | if mipsel or sparc does not support secure boot we shoudl not add it | |
| 12:05:31 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: From my look up all of them seem to do | |
| 12:05:39 | sean-k-mooney | ok | |
| 12:05:53 | aspiers | I had the same question as sean-k-mooney | |
| 12:06:03 | aspiers | kashyap: so the diff looks good to me | |
| 12:06:29 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: I lied, I'm not sure of PPC -- let me check | |
| 12:07:15 | sean-k-mooney | PPC at lest the 64bit versions definetly supports uefi secure boot | |
| 12:08:17 | aspiers | kashyap: you could always add a conditional in the tests to exclude 'secure' for some archs if necessary to maintain realistic fixtures | |
| 12:08:20 | kashyap | Ah, okay | |
| 12:08:53 | sean-k-mooney | i would prefer to keep the files correct | |
| 12:08:59 | sean-k-mooney | but yes | |
| 12:09:01 | kashyap | aspiers: True. I don't want to keep fiddling with it, though | |
| 12:10:16 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: And SPARC calls it "verified boot" (https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E61021/sysauth-vb.html) | |
| 12:10:52 | sean-k-mooney | kerified boot is normally used to refer to something very different | |
| 12:12:03 | sean-k-mooney | verifed boot is noramlly used to refer to a meserd trusted boot with an attestation server | |
| 12:13:18 | sean-k-mooney | in this case it does look like tis there name for secure boot | |
| 12:13:29 | kashyap | Yeah | |
| 12:13:39 | kashyap | So, I'll keep it in. | |
| 12:13:55 | sean-k-mooney | in x86 land verifed boot and secure boot are normally considerd two different things | |
| 12:13:59 | kashyap | (Or we could simply test only for x86) | |
| 12:14:09 | sean-k-mooney | i think its fine | |
| 12:15:01 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Okay, then, I'll keep them in. Thanks for looking :-) | |
| 12:19:40 | sean-k-mooney | is hould review that seriese again at some point but im a little busy with like 5 things in flight at the moment which is always fun | |
| 12:19:53 | openstackgerrit | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: Parse the 'os' element from domainCapabilities https://review.opendev.org/673790 | |
| 12:20:07 | sean-k-mooney | that said i think you and aspiers have it well in hand | |
| 12:20:10 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: I don't have much else besides the above. Still brewing. | |
| 12:20:24 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: So you're not missing anything. And yeah, I know you're already neck-deep in several things | |
| 12:20:55 | alex_xu | stephenfin: sean-k-mooney yea, it is behavior change, but agree with that, it is bug | |
| 12:21:22 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Might ping for some inputs / another set of eyes along the way. :-) | |
| 12:24:49 | sean-k-mooney | alex_xu: it really depends on how we got the cores before. nproc for example by defualt only reports the online core i belive | |
| 12:25:06 | sean-k-mooney | so it may not be a behavior change if the api we are calling in libvirt does the same | |
| 12:25:10 | sean-k-mooney | but i suspect it is | |
| 12:25:24 | sean-k-mooney | a behavior change | |
| 12:25:28 | alex_xu | ah, right | |
| 12:26:03 | alex_xu | but whatever, I can't think of people want to disable cpu also | |
| 12:26:59 | sean-k-mooney | well they might in the future for reasons. cough speed select cough | |
| 12:27:11 | alex_xu | hah | |
| 12:27:22 | sean-k-mooney | but we would want such feature to work with nova not against it | |
| 12:27:23 | alex_xu | no, it isn't disable, it is about you can see or not | |
| 12:27:42 | alex_xu | right | |
| 12:27:47 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: I thought I'd got that already. Sure, let me get it | |
| 12:28:53 | stephenfin | alex_xu: If you'd like, I can split that change out into its own fix so we can maybe backport it (though it's low priority) | |
| 12:29:14 | stephenfin | I think we should have a release note too, just in case | |
| 12:29:27 | alex_xu | stephenfin: I'm ok with it now, since agree with that it is corner case. maybe release note is enough | |
| 12:29:28 | stephenfin | I'll tack both on at the end and move them in if/when I need to rebase | |
| 12:29:38 | stephenfin | cool, reno it is | |
| 12:29:41 | alex_xu | cool | |
| 12:30:13 | alex_xu | I also didn't found any problem with https://review.opendev.org/#/c/671800/22, I think what i need is test now | |
| 12:30:57 | stephenfin | alex_xu: There are quite a few functional tests but they're at the end of the series https://review.opendev.org/#/c/671801 | |
| 12:31:26 | alex_xu | cool, I need to check it out | |
| 12:31:30 | stephenfin | I think sean-k-mooney is planning to test manually too. I was hoping to do the same myself but I've been prioritizing reviews | |
| 12:32:12 | stephenfin | Oh, and Bhagyashri Shewale (NTT) has been testing it for me. I should get them to leave comments if it works as expected | |
| 12:32:21 | alex_xu | stephenfin: the first test I want to do is resize | |
| 12:32:35 | stephenfin | Oh, I bet I don't have one for that | |
| 12:32:51 | stephenfin | I can put that together later this afternoon though | |
| 12:32:52 | alex_xu | \o/ | |
| 12:34:04 | sean-k-mooney | stephenfin: test which PCPUs in placment | |
| 12:34:07 | sean-k-mooney | or something else | |
| 12:34:12 | stephenfin | yarp | |
| 12:34:17 | sean-k-mooney | ah yes | |
| 12:34:39 | sean-k-mooney | i plan to test that preferably with artroms and gibis stuff too | |
| 12:34:57 | sean-k-mooney | so hopfully some of this will start merging to make that simpelre to do | |
| 12:35:18 | sean-k-mooney | when you think its a good time to test it let me know and ill test it standalone | |
| 12:36:49 | stephenfin | sean-k-mooney: I think it's good to go now, tbh | |
| 12:37:55 | sean-k-mooney | ok are there specific things you would like me to test | |
| 12:38:10 | stephenfin | Yup, if you give me five I can put together a list of test cases for things that I think should be covered | |
| 12:38:37 | sean-k-mooney | cool add it to an etherpad | |
| 12:39:00 | sean-k-mooney | i can then run through it add updated it with my results | |
| 12:39:04 | alex_xu | I guess resize is just won't be trigger between old and new, since there is no PCPU on old node. | |
| 12:39:44 | stephenfin | Yeah, a resize from a host reporting PCPU to one reporting VCPU won't be possible since it won't get past the scheduler | |
| 12:39:56 | sean-k-mooney | well that depends | |
| 12:40:08 | sean-k-mooney | if you resize form pinned to non pinned it woudl be | |
| 12:40:15 | stephenfin | Good point, actually | |
| 12:40:36 | sean-k-mooney | a cold migrate would not be | |