| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2024-04-26 | |||
| 17:34:33 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body validation helper https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915741 | |
| 17:34:33 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: conf: Add '[api] response_validation' option https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915740 | |
| 17:34:34 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for server action APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915742 | |
| 17:34:35 | opendevreview | Stephen Finucane proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add response body schemas for remaining server action APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/915743 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-04-28 | |||
| 15:13:25 | opendevreview | Ilia Baikov proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add cloud-init as whitelisted property in DynamicJSON vendor data to not be JSON-encoded https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/917276 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-04-29 | |||
| 00:42:04 | opendevreview | Ilia Baikov proposed openstack/nova master: api: Add cloud-init as whitelisted property in DynamicJSON vendor data to not be JSON-encoded https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/917276 | |
| 01:46:02 | songwenping__ | sean-k-mooney: how can i get the access to the bugzilla? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953339 | |
| 10:50:48 | sean-k-mooney | songwenping_: its restircted to redhat employee's its also for rhel 6.4 which has been out of supprot for seveeral years so im not sure its going to be relvent ot you? | |
| 10:51:23 | sean-k-mooney | it was fixed in 2014 | |
| 10:57:48 | songwenping_ | sean-k-mooney: we meet the same problem with the libvirt 6.2.0, is the libvirt is too old and which version i will upgrade? | |
| 10:58:38 | sean-k-mooney | not being able to attach >50 VF to a single vm? | |
| 10:59:49 | sean-k-mooney | the bug you linked was in libnl which is the netlink libary but hte libvirt fix that used it was in 0.10.2 | |
| 11:00:06 | sean-k-mooney | so this is not because your libvirt is two old | |
| 11:01:59 | sean-k-mooney | actully it might not require 50 VF with one vm just vfs 50 and above? | |
| 11:02:02 | sean-k-mooney | its really not clear form the bug | |
| 11:02:04 | songwenping_ | only bind one VF to vm | |
| 11:02:21 | songwenping_ | the full error message from nova-compute is : Instance failed to spawn: libvirt.libvirtError: internal error: missing IFLA_VF_INFO in netlink response | |
| 11:03:36 | sean-k-mooney | songwenping_: ok my guess is there my be a similar bug but you are not hitting that one | |
| 11:05:20 | songwenping_ | so which version of netlink libary is support? | |
| 11:05:37 | sean-k-mooney | that has noting to do with nova | |
| 11:05:44 | sean-k-mooney | that is determined by your distro | |
| 11:05:58 | sean-k-mooney | what card are you tring to use | |
| 11:06:16 | sean-k-mooney | i found this googleing https://forums.developer.nvidia.com/t/connectx-6-dx-sr-iov-libvirt-error/249762 | |
| 11:08:34 | songwenping_ | we are using Mellanox cx5 nic | |
| 11:09:17 | sean-k-mooney | it shared the same kernel driver so it may be the same or a simialr bug | |
| 11:10:56 | songwenping_ | yeah, i alse found the site, so i wonder if we should upgrade the libvirt | |
| 12:04:32 | elodilles | bauzas: if you are around, a gentle reminder for the nova release patches o:) https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/releases+file:%5Edeliverables/.*/nova.yaml+is:open | |
| 12:05:10 | elodilles | Uggla_ auniyal : fyi ^^^ | |
| 12:09:11 | frickler | oh, that's a nice search filter, /me takes notes ;) | |
| 12:11:07 | bauzas | frickler: yeah I used the filter something like 9yo when I was only a nova-scheduler expert :) | |
| 15:13:25 | samcat116 | Hi all, I submitted this bug about Placement and aarch64 nodes receiving x86 traits about a week ago. Any ideas on a next step I could take? https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2062425 Thanks! | |
| 15:39:13 | tkajinam | samcat116, If I read the current code correctly you still have to add HW_ARCH_* traits manually to resource providers. I don't see any logic in libvirt driver to report these traits. | |
| 15:39:33 | tkajinam | (I've left a comment in a bug too | |
| 15:40:16 | samcat116 | I see all of the relevant x86 traits created on the other x86 nodes, and I did nothing to create those | |
| 15:40:20 | tkajinam | I was not involved in the discussion of that cpu arch support. probably someone from the core can double-check my observation and probably give context of the current implementation | |
| 15:40:44 | tkajinam | that's a trait for CPU feature, not one for arch | |
| 15:41:10 | tkajinam | no cpu archutecture trait is currently reported automatically. | |
| 15:42:45 | samcat116 | Oh so those are different things | |
| 15:42:49 | tkajinam | cpu architecture trait for x86_64 would be HW_ARCH_X86_64 | |
| 15:44:04 | tkajinam | samcat116, yeah that's different | |
| 15:44:25 | tkajinam | it's ugly that HW_CPU_X86_AESNI is reported in aarh64 node, but we first have to have a mechanism to detect the cpu architecture | |
| 15:44:32 | tkajinam | which is not implemented now | |
| 15:44:37 | samcat116 | Ok, so I guess this is more of a feature request then to automatically set that | |
| 15:45:10 | samcat116 | Yeah I mean I see on startup nova-compute recognizes its aarch64 and tells me its not really tested | |
| 15:45:23 | samcat116 | But from what I've read the support should be pretty decent by now | |
| 15:45:37 | tkajinam | yeah, I agree > more of a feature request | |
| 15:45:57 | samcat116 | am I also correct in understanding that if I manually apply the right arch trait to this node, it will lose all of the automatic traits it has now? | |
| 15:48:55 | tkajinam | iirc if you use `openstack resource provider trait set` to add trait you have to give all traits | |
| 15:50:49 | tkajinam | once additional traits are added, these should be kept. | |
| 15:52:00 | samcat116 | Ok, I'll try that and manually add all of the ones it got automatically | |
| 15:52:02 | samcat116 | thank you! | |
| 17:07:42 | opendevreview | Pierre Riteau proposed openstack/nova master: Fix formatting issues in extra-specs docs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/917462 | |
| 17:31:29 | opendevreview | Amit Uniyal proposed openstack/nova master: Note the deleyad address view https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/827856 | |
| 18:50:40 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: fyi i created https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/eventlet-removal-part-1 | |
| 18:59:38 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Note the deleyad address view https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/827856 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2024-04-30 | |||
| 09:16:53 | opendevreview | Michael Still proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Propose a new API microversion for a spice-direct console. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/915190 | |
| 09:21:07 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/nova master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/917594 | |
| 10:06:44 | opendevreview | ribaudr proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Update and Re-propose "Allow Manila shares to be directly attached to an instance when using libvirt" for Dalmatian https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/913997 | |
| 10:15:38 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/placement master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/917608 | |
| 10:17:46 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-vif master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/917611 | |
| 10:20:17 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-traits master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-traits/+/917613 | |
| 10:21:29 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-resource-classes master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-resource-classes/+/917614 | |
| 11:30:14 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test case for bug 1978573 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/914653 | |
| 11:53:28 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-traits master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-traits/+/917613 | |
| 12:13:14 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-vif master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/917611 | |
| 12:44:29 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/917685 | |
| 12:48:34 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Fix KeyError on assisted snapshot call https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/900783 | |
| 12:54:34 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Add regression test case for bug 1978573 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/914653 | |
| 12:54:35 | opendevreview | Rajesh Tailor proposed openstack/nova master: Restore original AZ when unshelve fails https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/911108 | |
| 13:52:51 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-vif master: DNM: Run requirement-check jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/917707 | |
| 13:53:33 | tkajinam | ^^^ sean-k-mooney I think this shows how the requirement-check job fails with the current u-c.txt file which was cleaned up. | |
| 13:58:27 | sean-k-mooney | tkajinam: im not sayign we shoudl not update them | |
| 13:58:39 | sean-k-mooney | im saying that the update you propoes is not correct as it allows know broken version | |
| 13:58:50 | sean-k-mooney | so we either need to fix the requiremetn repo | |
| 13:59:03 | sean-k-mooney | or you need to increase the min version above the blocked version | |
| 13:59:44 | tkajinam | I can bump the min version but I doubt the current list excludes all of known bad versions really | |
| 14:00:17 | sean-k-mooney | sure but allowing know broken version i would consider to be a medium severity bug | |
| 14:01:08 | sean-k-mooney | it would be a high severity bug if pip tied to install a previously blocked version and it cuase dissues | |
| 14:01:30 | tkajinam | I understand that | |
| 14:01:51 | tkajinam | my expectation is that pip would install the "latest" good version so it may not attempt to install such ancient versions | |
| 14:02:13 | sean-k-mooney | sure and my epecation is project do not allow pip to install know bad versions | |
| 14:02:23 | tkajinam | so this is more like a policy decision. I'll leave it for a while in case someone else chime in with a different thought | |
| 14:02:34 | sean-k-mooney | by default it wont but it should not be possibel even if you pass a constratigs file | |
| 14:03:01 | tkajinam | yeah | |
| 14:03:02 | tkajinam | but will update it to bump min unless I get additional feedback | |
| 14:04:05 | tkajinam | Stephen merged patches in a few other nova repos so I can push min bumps as follow-up if we agree with the direction | |
| 14:04:33 | sean-k-mooney | or we revert them | |
| 14:04:53 | tkajinam | we can't revert because requiremet-check job fails on reverts | |
| 14:05:09 | tkajinam | unless we "fix" the upper-constraint file | |
| 14:05:31 | sean-k-mooney | ok well lets fix them quickly then | |
| 14:05:39 | sean-k-mooney | and let not merge any more | |
| 14:09:00 | sean-k-mooney | i think os-traits is the only one where it merged | |
| 14:10:24 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-vif master: Remove old excludes https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/917611 | |
| 14:12:34 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-traits master: Bump min versions to exclude known bad versions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-traits/+/917713 | |
| 14:13:06 | tkajinam | ^^^ this is the only nova repo which gets that change merged | |
| 14:13:10 | tkajinam | I'll update the other open ones | |
| 14:14:29 | tkajinam | maybe I can bring the topic to the meeting today before I update all | |
| 14:29:17 | sean-k-mooney | sure but it likely should also be disucssed with the requirements project | |
| 14:29:48 | sean-k-mooney | im +2 on both by the way | |
| 14:37:08 | tkajinam | let's see how others think. but I hope we can move on with project decisions now and follow up with the global policy discussion, because the job failure may block any change which updates requirements | |