Earlier  
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2020-03-26
15:43:35 johnthetubaguy sean-k-mooney: yeah, what they wanted to do was call the Cinder swap API, but they got confused
15:43:39 gibi for me the difference is like change my house (swap) or repaint the kitchen in my house (update)
15:44:36 sean-k-mooney actully i think our customer wanted to bypass a check in the ciner side a and force it so that is why they used nova
15:45:35 johnthetubaguy gibi: or you swap out your oven to a hot one, or just change tell it to self destruct when your pizza is done. its the same thing you are changing.
15:45:45 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add framework for extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/704643
15:45:46 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: docs: Add documentation for flavor extra specs https://review.opendev.org/710037
15:45:46 sean-k-mooney anyway when we have had issue related to swap volume we havne pretty much always fixed it once for them and told them not to do that again
15:45:46 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add microversion 2.84, extra spec validation https://review.opendev.org/708436
15:45:55 stephenfin gibi: I'd to rebase that ^ after losing the race for 2.83. Could you hit https://review.opendev.org/#/c/708436/9 again?
15:46:18 johnthetubaguy sean-k-mooney: yeah, sounds like they were doing something bad. something we shouldn't tell them to do in the docs
15:46:19 stephenfin and johnthetubaguy, any chance you'll stick that on your list? iirc, that was also on your list of gripes ^
15:46:21 gibi johnthetubaguy: yeah like that. replace the whole v.s. tweak a prt of the whole
15:46:45 gibi stephenfin: sure
15:46:56 johnthetubaguy stephenfin: well played, and yes on both counts
15:47:05 gibi stephenfin: I think I caused you to lose :)
15:47:34 stephenfin well, thankfully it's just lyarwood and I duking it out for 2.84 now, afaict :)
15:48:05 gibi :)
15:50:38 sean-k-mooney johnthetubaguy: have you had any futher issues with the libosinfo feature where we try to set some default based on the disto name/version
15:51:13 johnthetubaguy sean-k-mooney: mostly given up on it I think, not had time to dig
15:51:19 sean-k-mooney johnthetubaguy: we backported the fix for the last one downstream and fond that new libosinfo broke use in another way
15:51:54 sean-k-mooney johnthetubaguy: ok so i would like to remove it in victoria since it was broken from the start given it ignores architeture and machine type
15:52:13 sean-k-mooney would that cause issues for you if we did that
15:52:30 johnthetubaguy sean-k-mooney: it would make my life easier I think
15:52:54 sean-k-mooney we likely would fix the issue we hit so we can backport then kill it with fire in the next patch
15:52:55 johnthetubaguy sounds like a good idea, and just replace it with some decent documentation
15:53:29 sean-k-mooney ya we have explict image properties to set everyting it can set anyway
15:53:43 gibi stephenfin: done.
15:53:48 stephenfin thanks
15:54:00 sean-k-mooney and i alreay recommend people to use those anyway since libosinfo change its default out of our contol anyway
15:54:34 gibi nova meeting starts in 5 and a half minutes on #openstack-meeting-3
16:10:54 lyarwood stephenfin: oOOoOoo shiny.. WAIT A MINUTE!
16:11:19 lyarwood stephenfin: feel free to land on 2.84 btw, I need to rework something in my series today anyway
16:11:33 lyarwood stephenfin: if it's just the two of us I'll land on 2.85
16:12:09 openstackgerrit Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: Use neutronclient's port binding APIs https://review.opendev.org/706295
16:19:00 artom stephenfin, for the record, I hate https://review.opendev.org/#/c/631053/ and everything it stands for
16:19:17 artom I'll still review it because I started, but I will forever hold this grudge in my hear.
16:19:20 artom *heart.
16:20:14 stephenfin 🕺🕺🕺
16:20:14 stephenfin 🕺🕺🕺
16:21:15 artom ... man dancing?
16:25:32 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: libvirt: support to create instance with dedicated and shared CPUs https://review.opendev.org/714655
16:25:32 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: Take the instance dedicated CPU list from 'cpu_pinning' if possible https://review.opendev.org/713352
16:25:33 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: Remove 'InstanceNUMACell.cpu_pinning_requested' field https://review.opendev.org/714656
16:25:33 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: 'cpu_pinning_requested' property could be derived directly from cpu_policy https://review.opendev.org/713353
16:25:34 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce 'MIXED' CPU allocation policy for instance https://review.opendev.org/713354
16:25:34 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor the code in checking available host CPUs https://review.opendev.org/714657
16:25:35 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: metadata: export the vCPU IDs that are pinning on the host CPUs https://review.opendev.org/688936
16:25:35 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: Introduce the interface of creating 'MIXED' policy instance through 'PCPU' and 'VCPU' https://review.opendev.org/713355
16:25:36 openstackgerrit Huaqiang Wang proposed openstack/nova master: [WIP] An alternative way for keeping instance dedicated CPUs https://review.opendev.org/714658
16:26:09 gmann johnthetubaguy: you already have noticed this. I added no-deprecation tests for admin-api also which does not make a difference than enable-scope tests but still to check if nothing weird happens when remove deprecation. - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/715085/2/nova/tests/unit/policies/test_instance_usage_audit_log.py@99
16:26:24 gmann hope that is fine, in some cases it is just removing the deprecatiob from base rule and checks
16:26:47 johnthetubaguy gmann: yeah, seemed good to check anyways
16:26:55 gmann ok
16:27:16 johnthetubaguy its a bit like nova-next tests
16:27:22 huaqiang stephenfin: I updated the series for 'mixed policy instance', but only the last patch I changed this time
16:27:22 gmann yeah
16:27:48 huaqiang https://review.opendev.org/714658 [WIP] An alternative way for keeping instance dedicated CPUs
16:28:14 huaqiang this 'pcpuset approach' one,
16:28:59 huaqiang If you have time please have a look for this patch,
16:29:27 huaqiang I just want your comments for if it is ready to drop the 'cpu_pinning' approach now
16:30:00 huaqiang it the answer is comfirmative, I'll drop it and submit new series.
16:32:27 huaqiang this patch is still a 'WIP' patch, I still have several 'TODO's, I'll address tomorrow.
16:32:30 openstackgerrit John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Add legacy limits and usage to unified limits https://review.opendev.org/713498
16:32:30 openstackgerrit John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Enforce resource limits using oslo.limit https://review.opendev.org/615180
16:32:31 openstackgerrit John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Update quota apis with keystone limits and usage https://review.opendev.org/713499
16:48:32 openstackgerrit John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Tell oslo.limit how to count nova resources https://review.opendev.org/713301
16:49:08 openstackgerrit John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Enforce resource limits using oslo.limit https://review.opendev.org/615180
16:49:18 openstackgerrit John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Add legacy limits and usage to unified limits https://review.opendev.org/713498
16:49:25 openstackgerrit John Garbutt proposed openstack/nova master: Update quota apis with keystone limits and usage https://review.opendev.org/713499
16:53:07 gmann dansmith: johnthetubaguy on - delete_on_termination via PUT, do we want to control it via separate policy or with swap operation policy which is admin by default - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/693828/19/nova/api/openstack/compute/volumes.py@494
16:53:31 johnthetubaguy its a new policy I think, admin_or_owner one
16:53:45 johnthetubaguy probably need to rename the old one I guess
16:54:54 dansmith yeah, new policy
16:54:54 gmann ok.
16:55:44 johnthetubaguy gmann: update -> swap, new one called "put" ?
16:56:19 gmann i was thinking new one to 'update' but that is existing and conflcit at deprecation logic
16:56:37 johnthetubaguy yeah, agreed
16:56:40 gmann 'put' will be inconsistentname from other one
16:57:15 gmann 'os-volumes-attachments:volume:update' for new ?
16:57:32 gmann volume is redundant though
16:57:38 johnthetubaguy that seems more inconsistent though
16:57:43 gmann :)
16:58:38 dansmith I would think that it would be okay to rename the existing one, given the conflict
16:58:40 dansmith with a reno
16:59:03 dansmith the existing one, if opened to non-admin users wouldn't be terrible if it applied to the delete flag, and probably expected
16:59:05 johnthetubaguy yeah, I am tempted to just reno about the conflict
16:59:11 gmann ok, deprecation message saying this old policy is being used for this new operation ?
16:59:18 dansmith in all likelihood nobody has changed this one since it _is_ supposed to be for cinder only
16:59:41 dansmith gmann: maybe not deprecation, but a warning if it's set to non-default?
16:59:55 johnthetubaguy nah, skip deprecation, make existing "update" PROJECT_MEMBER_OR_SYSTEM_ADMIN, then add new rule for swap
17:00:17 dansmith yeah, that
17:00:45 gmann ok, that is better.
17:00:48 johnthetubaguy they shouldn't have changed it, if they did, they should read the reno note
17:01:24 dansmith exactly
17:01:41 dansmith if this was for any other thing I would take more care, but this is suuuper obscure and special
17:02:22 gmann and cinder will keep working as new defaults keep allowing admin to access
17:02:53 dansmith yeah
17:03:09 gmann ok adding comment on the review for brinzhang_
17:03:19 sean-k-mooney gibi: looking at that os-vif repo we have not merged any patches since we did the last release so i think we can stick with the 2.0.0 release for m3 which we created at m2
17:04:22 sean-k-mooney gibi: if we do merge something between no and next week i can request a release but for now we are good.

Earlier   Later