| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-08-29 | |||
| 12:04:39 | sean-k-mooney | that should be ok to backport too | |
| 12:05:14 | sean-k-mooney | thats needed for fake_get_mac_by_pci_address | |
| 12:05:39 | sean-k-mooney | that bug has existied since pf support was added so backporting to wallaby is fine | |
| 12:05:40 | gibi | ahh yeah, that was en extension to the fixture | |
| 12:05:59 | sean-k-mooney | ya i could just pull that in but if this does not cause much issue ill just backport it | |
| 12:06:01 | gibi | but for the MAC update to work we need https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/neutron/+/829247 on the neutron side too | |
| 12:06:08 | sean-k-mooney | yes | |
| 12:06:15 | gibi | this is getting hairy :) | |
| 12:06:17 | sean-k-mooney | but having the mac info wont break anything | |
| 12:06:22 | gibi | true | |
| 12:06:29 | sean-k-mooney | so we can also backport the neutron patch but its not a blocker | |
| 12:06:30 | gibi | then fine | |
| 12:06:35 | sean-k-mooney | which is why you did not have a depens on | |
| 12:06:57 | sean-k-mooney | if this proves unworkable ill pull in just the test fixture changes | |
| 12:07:12 | gibi | ack | |
| 12:07:14 | gibi | make sense | |
| 12:58:32 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ok i have a working backport series i need to add cherrypicked lines since i pull them in via interactive rebase to get the order right but ill push them and then do that | |
| 12:58:52 | gibi | cool | |
| 12:59:10 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: refactor: remove duplicated logic https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855022 | |
| 12:59:11 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Record SRIOV PF MAC in the binding profile https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855023 | |
| 12:59:12 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Remove double mocking https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855024 | |
| 12:59:13 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Remove double mocking... again https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855025 | |
| 12:59:14 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Add compute restart capability for libvirt func tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855026 | |
| 12:59:39 | sean-k-mooney | i was tempted to pull in the vdpa change to stop using sriov | |
| 13:00:00 | sean-k-mooney | but im not sure if that was backportable | |
| 13:00:05 | sean-k-mooney | so i didnt add it | |
| 13:08:35 | gibi | OK I think I finished looking at the latest update of the manila series. what was fixed looks correct to me, but there is still open comment. I know Uggla working on them as we speak | |
| 13:10:13 | gibi | I'm going to switch back to the PCI series adding unit tests. But I will keep an eye of incoming updates on user_data, bfv rebuild and manial | |
| 13:10:24 | gibi | manila | |
| 13:10:26 | gibi | serieses | |
| 13:10:38 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: refactor: remove duplicated logic https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855022 | |
| 13:10:39 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Record SRIOV PF MAC in the binding profile https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855023 | |
| 13:10:40 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Remove double mocking https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855024 | |
| 13:10:42 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Remove double mocking... again https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855025 | |
| 13:10:44 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Add compute restart capability for libvirt func tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855026 | |
| 13:11:22 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: ack ^ those can wait until after FF but if you get time to look over them many were your patches orginally | |
| 13:11:53 | gibi | sure that is a nice distraction for my afternoon coffee :) | |
| 13:12:06 | gibi | was there any major merge conflict there? | |
| 13:12:33 | sean-k-mooney | no not really. i had to decide when to stop pulling in patches to avoid them | |
| 13:12:45 | sean-k-mooney | but most were trivia | |
| 13:13:19 | Uggla | gibi, thank you for the review. Although I have a lot of work and corrections to do. ;) | |
| 13:13:46 | gibi | Uggla: no worries. FF week is always a bit crazy :D | |
| 13:14:35 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: ack | |
| 13:19:26 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: very odd | |
| 13:19:39 | sean-k-mooney | all the reference commits are not wrong but i copied them from gerrit | |
| 13:19:46 | sean-k-mooney | so i dont knwo why they are wrong | |
| 13:20:31 | gibi | maybe you copied from an older PS? | |
| 13:20:51 | sean-k-mooney | actuly they are not wrong https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/commit/7bba330a1e6c09564b27bbbd85f42519c5b1598e | |
| 13:21:59 | sean-k-mooney | https://opendev.org/openstack/nova/commit/8d2776fb34339b311c713992a39507452c4ae42f | |
| 13:22:02 | sean-k-mooney | they both exist | |
| 13:22:22 | sean-k-mooney | the one i have listed is the merged one | |
| 13:22:33 | sean-k-mooney | the other wone is the one that came form the review | |
| 13:22:49 | sean-k-mooney | gerrit rebases it when its applying it to the repo | |
| 13:23:12 | sean-k-mooney | ill see what the bot says when it runs | |
| 13:23:23 | sean-k-mooney | and ill either try fixing them again or leave them as is | |
| 13:23:49 | sean-k-mooney | i was trying to use the commit form the gitia link | |
| 13:24:44 | sean-k-mooney | if i need too ill just cherry-pick them all again form a clean start | |
| 13:24:56 | sean-k-mooney | i might jsut do that now | |
| 13:26:05 | sean-k-mooney | git review will do it the way the check script expects | |
| 13:29:54 | gibi | yeah the only downside of the current hashes that they are not bringig up the original patch in gerrit ui | |
| 13:31:13 | sean-k-mooney | because i pulled them in vai rebase i dont have all the conflict lines either so im redoing them now which will add those | |
| 13:31:28 | sean-k-mooney | rebase is simpler to get it working but this will produce a better backport | |
| 13:34:12 | gibi | ack, I noted a request in the commit message of https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855025/2//COMMIT_MSG#27 about the zuul change | |
| 13:46:03 | whoami-rajat | dansmith, sean-k-mooney hey, I changed the rpcapi pinning in compute but again the tests are failing, not sure how to deal with that failure without pinning the version there https://9e9cf999e8b8fa064cf7-7de3ea29d2988c6d3fb53b5f30580c1f.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/820368/35/check/openstack-tox-py38/b87dc94/testr_results.html | |
| 13:47:06 | dansmith | whoami-rajat: I'm going through the feedback right now. I'm not sure what needed changing, but I'll look at it when I finish | |
| 13:47:57 | whoami-rajat | dansmith, ack, thanks | |
| 13:48:55 | sean-k-mooney | ack ill take a look at that shortly jsut finishing something locally | |
| 13:52:19 | dansmith | whoami-rajat: oh because you changed L440 to 6.1? | |
| 13:52:37 | dansmith | whoami-rajat: I think that is never supposed to be anything but x.0 | |
| 13:53:04 | whoami-rajat | dansmith, ah, let me try to change that | |
| 13:53:05 | dansmith | whoami-rajat: that's the default that gets used if a specific call doesn't use a higher version | |
| 13:53:37 | dansmith | yeah, confirmed, that should stay 6.0 | |
| 13:54:32 | whoami-rajat | dansmith, yep that passed the tests \o/ | |
| 13:55:28 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: we are pinning to oldest rpc major not latest rpc by default? | |
| 13:55:34 | sean-k-mooney | i guess to test the back leveling | |
| 13:56:10 | sean-k-mooney | just making sure why they are not tested with the latest version i guess when we add a new rpc we bump the affected calls | |
| 13:56:16 | sean-k-mooney | in a new test | |
| 13:56:35 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: we always make calls at the lowest version they need | |
| 13:56:42 | sean-k-mooney | and by pinning to the X.0 we meake suer we did not break it | |
| 13:56:46 | sean-k-mooney | ok | |
| 13:56:47 | dansmith | so calls that haven't changed since the last major bump are made at .0 | |
| 13:57:04 | sean-k-mooney | ya i tought we did it the other way but that makes sense why we do it this way | |
| 13:59:34 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: refactor: remove duplicated logic https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855022 | |
| 13:59:35 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Record SRIOV PF MAC in the binding profile https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855023 | |
| 13:59:36 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Remove double mocking https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855024 | |
| 13:59:37 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Remove double mocking... again https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855025 | |
| 13:59:38 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: Add compute restart capability for libvirt func tests https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855026 | |
| 13:59:40 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova stable/yoga: enable blocked VDPA move operations https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/855035 | |
| 14:00:55 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: by the way the 5.x support is already deprecated yes we should ensure we can drop it next cycle without being impacted by the new lifecycle | |
| 14:01:25 | sean-k-mooney | we dont have to drop it next cycle but i dont want to be force to keep it until BB | |
| 14:01:39 | dansmith | I dunno, I thought we were thinking about keeping it around for longer | |
| 14:01:43 | sean-k-mooney | now that we have 6.X RPCs | |
| 14:02:07 | sean-k-mooney | well we shoudl dicuss it i guess | |
| 14:02:21 | sean-k-mooney | the epecation in yoga was no new deploymets would use 5.X | |
| 14:02:43 | sean-k-mooney | but we were keeping the compat for zed | |
| 14:17:09 | dansmith | whoami-rajat: the patch underneath you has shifted again, so you should rebase *on* it before you push if possible | |
| 15:02:28 | hkominos | Hi guys! I have a question regarding policies that I want to ask. When we edit lets say /etc/nova/policy.json , is the nova-api process that will read these new policies or the keystone process ? | |
| 15:06:02 | dansmith | nova-api | |
| 15:06:13 | hkominos | thx ! | |
| 15:24:06 | gmann | gibi: dansmith: please check this documentation and releasenote for RBAC change https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/854882 | |