| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2025-09-04 | |||
| 15:03:53 | dansmith | I'm not saying we shouldn't just solve this the way we've prescribed here, but... :) | |
| 15:04:43 | bauzas | in a cloud world, I'm still surprised to see that we continue to provide hypervisor specific fields | |
| 15:09:25 | sean-k-mooney | bauzas: well https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/765797/comment/8926d415_9c5a7022/ we all said we woudl prefer to remove it but you wanted to discuss it with operators first. | |
| 15:10:22 | sean-k-mooney | we tried to remove it once before and we decied to revers cource becuase peopel ask to keep it | |
| 15:10:39 | sean-k-mooney | that does nto mean we cant revisit that and fix it going forward | |
| 15:10:49 | sean-k-mooney | but we shoudl nto rewrite history | |
| 15:11:02 | bauzas | LOL | |
| 15:11:16 | bauzas | I love when something pops up out of context :) | |
| 15:11:32 | bauzas | 1/ I was only talking about hypervisor show | |
| 15:11:52 | bauzas | 2/ I was just trying to explain that we should remove that but by another spec, not that one | |
| 15:12:08 | sean-k-mooney | well that was update 3 to the sepc | |
| 15:12:12 | bauzas | and AFAIK, the spec you mentioned wasn't the one we had for 2.88, right? | |
| 15:12:26 | sean-k-mooney | we rogainlly agreed to remvoe it then we updated it after the fact to readd it | |
| 15:12:58 | sean-k-mooney | it was the spec for 2.88 it jsut went through many iteration | |
| 15:14:36 | sean-k-mooney | you can see the iteration if you really care https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/commits/abfb91875c7d6b1e2df45d5bc2244956bc662884/specs/wallaby/approved/modernize-os-hypervisors-api.rst | |
| 15:16:56 | sean-k-mooney | i alwasy rememebr this spec because stephen use a 💩emoji | |
| 16:33:46 | gmaan | ++, I agree to continue showing it in same API instead of separate (separate API even in old API will be microversion bump). reporting cache value is better solution and backportable. | |
| 16:46:16 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/nova master: Use SDK for Neutron networks https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928022 | |
| 17:31:44 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: change uptime in hypervisor to be provided async using stats https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959571 | |
| 17:32:40 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: gmaan: dansmith: I made a quick POC 'that works on my devstack' | |
| 17:33:52 | bauzas | jkulik too : https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959571 | |
| 17:59:47 | sean-k-mooney | i have a slightly diffent quick poc partly done | |
| 20:45:11 | opendevreview | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: hypervisors: Optimize uptime retrieval for better performance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959604 | |
| #openstack-nova - 2025-09-05 | |||
| 07:55:50 | opendevreview | Nicolai Ruckel proposed openstack/nova master: Preserve UEFI NVRAM variable store https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959682 | |
| 07:59:12 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Change uptime in hypervisor to be provided async using stats https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959571 | |
| 08:47:07 | opendevreview | Nicolai Ruckel proposed openstack/nova master: Preserve UEFI NVRAM variable store https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959682 | |
| 10:02:39 | gibi | bauzas: you are quick. I suprised that we already has impl proposed to the hypervisor uptime bug. I left some comments in the patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959571 | |
| 11:12:15 | opendevreview | Johannes Kulik proposed openstack/nova master: api: Pre-query not deleted members in server groups https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959696 | |
| 11:12:46 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: so do i | |
| 11:12:57 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959604 | |
| 11:13:19 | sean-k-mooney | ah you found my version too | |
| 11:16:08 | gibi | ohh wait. I only found your version somehow not bauzas' | |
| 11:16:25 | gibi | so I will look at bauzas' too | |
| 11:16:29 | sean-k-mooney | i added you to mine :) | |
| 11:16:44 | sean-k-mooney | its similar without the test update and no fall back | |
| 11:23:20 | gibi | now I added my feedback to both :) | |
| 11:29:13 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: thanks just read them and i geneally agree with them | |
| 11:30:03 | sean-k-mooney | ill make those changes shortly and ill also update teh api ref to not that this is a driver depenent api respocne and that its cached, in addtion ot the mention in the release note. | |
| 11:30:46 | gibi | cool thanks. Please sean-k-mooney bauzas agree on which patch is the "official" one :) | |
| 11:30:47 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: what did you think of the release note and commit message in general. those were the only thing i got ai to do | |
| 11:31:04 | gibi | I had no problem with those indeed | |
| 11:36:53 | jkulik | as said yesterday, I'd like to get our server-group listing performance improvement patches upstream if possible. I opened https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/2122109 for that and already pushed the first one: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959696 - feedback appreciated | |
| 11:37:07 | gibi | bauzas: if you have a chance then you can take a look at https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22bug/2115905%22 . I respun it to fix sean-k-mooney's comments and sean-k-mooney is +2 on it | |
| 12:17:27 | bauzas | I have another thing to do now | |
| 12:17:57 | bauzas | honestly I don't care, I created my patch first, but if you prefer Sean's one, meh | |
| 12:18:14 | bauzas | I just want it for RC1 | |
| 12:18:47 | gibi | bauzas: I did not expressed preference :) | |
| 12:20:26 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/os-vif stable/2025.2: Update .gitreview for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/959741 | |
| 12:20:27 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/os-vif stable/2025.2: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/959742 | |
| 12:20:29 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/os-vif master: Update master for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/959743 | |
| 12:20:35 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-placement stable/2025.2: Update .gitreview for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-placement/+/959744 | |
| 12:20:36 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-placement stable/2025.2: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-placement/+/959745 | |
| 12:20:38 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/osc-placement master: Update master for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/osc-placement/+/959746 | |
| 12:20:44 | gibi | my only preference is not having two competing patches at the end | |
| 12:20:46 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/python-novaclient stable/2025.2: Update .gitreview for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/959747 | |
| 12:20:47 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/python-novaclient stable/2025.2: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/959748 | |
| 12:20:48 | opendevreview | OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Update master for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/959749 | |
| 13:05:41 | opendevreview | Lajos Katona proposed openstack/nova master: Use SDK for Neutron networks https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/928022 | |
| 13:06:06 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Reproduce that only half of the PCI devs are removed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959308 | |
| 13:10:20 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-vif stable/2025.2: Update .gitreview for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/959741 | |
| 13:14:56 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/python-novaclient stable/2025.2: Update .gitreview for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/959747 | |
| 13:14:58 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/python-novaclient stable/2025.2: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-novaclient/+/959748 | |
| 13:55:56 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-vif master: Update master for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/959743 | |
| 14:02:42 | tkajinam | o/ there is a bug with SEV encrypted instances recently reported. I've proposed a fix for it which was validated by a reporter. Can we merge it before rc (this may not conflict with the feature freeze policy). I'm ok to merge it after rc and then backport it later, though | |
| 14:02:44 | tkajinam | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/958868 | |
| 14:04:04 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/os-vif stable/2025.2: Update TOX_CONSTRAINTS_FILE for stable/2025.2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/959742 | |
| 14:06:23 | opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/os-vif stable/2025.2: Remove remaining job with Ubuntu Jammy (22.04) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-vif/+/959855 | |
| 14:15:29 | gibi | tkajinam: thanks! it is approved now | |
| 14:15:43 | tkajinam | gibi, thx ! | |
| 14:40:48 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova stable/2025.1: Fix pci_tracker.save to delete all removed devs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959309 | |
| 14:40:59 | opendevreview | Merged openstack/nova master: Reproduce bug/2115905 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/954336 | |
| 14:47:52 | opendevreview | Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/nova master: Change uptime in hypervisor to be provided async using stats https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/959571 | |
| 14:49:07 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: gibi: I offer to use my patch as the fix (as mine was a bit older than sean's one and given I have capacity for that), but I added Sean as co-author to reflect his effort too | |
| 14:49:40 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: if you prefer having yours as main, fine, tell me and I'll abandon mine | |
| 14:49:55 | bauzas | as I said, my main concern is to make sure we have that by RC1 | |
| 14:50:26 | sean-k-mooney | well i do | |
| 14:50:37 | sean-k-mooney | becuase i said i would work on it before you wrote your patch | |
| 14:50:56 | sean-k-mooney | so i was annoy wen you pushed it while i was fixing uniti tests and docs ectra | |
| 14:51:41 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: to me it sounded like you'd work on it if you had time, and weren't particularly concerned about getting it any time soon | |
| 14:51:51 | dansmith | so I was glad bauzas just went ahead with it | |
| 14:52:20 | sean-k-mooney | i only did push it early because of the sprint/jira disucssion downstream | |
| 14:52:40 | sean-k-mooney | like i had it open the entire tiem and was workign on it on an doff since i said i would on irc | |
| 14:52:56 | sean-k-mooney | i kept stopping to explian how to fix it to bauzas | |
| 14:53:20 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: that seems like a rather uncharitable characterization of the conversation as I remember it | |
| 14:54:18 | bauzas | okay, I don't want to create a situation, lemme abandon my change | |
| 14:54:30 | bauzas | this is Friday afternoon for me and I'm done arguing for the week :) | |
| 14:54:45 | sean-k-mooney | if your change is done and has all the test and what gibi asked for i litrally only have one test left ot finsh | |
| 14:55:01 | sean-k-mooney | so i can drop it but i was almost done before my team call earier today | |
| 14:55:25 | bauzas | I don't f... care :) | |
| 14:55:33 | bauzas | if you have time to work on it, do it | |
| 14:56:09 | bauzas | anyway, patch abandoned, floor is yours but please make sure that's on a good shape for rc1 | |
| 14:56:23 | bauzas | I can't just argue, again I'm done | |
| 14:56:25 | dansmith | I don't want to go dig up actual quotes, but it surely seemed to me we left the conversation with sean-k-mooney indicating not a lot of time to work on it and bauzas saying he did | |
| 14:56:51 | dansmith | so I reviewed bauzas' immediately and then sean-k-mooney pushed a competing one up after even that first round of reviews | |
| 14:56:53 | bauzas | fwiw, we have a tracker somewhere downstream that also needs to reflect the who does what | |
| 14:57:01 | dansmith | so now I've got to go review the other one? | |
| 14:57:04 | bauzas | so please update it as well | |
| 14:57:39 | bauzas | dansmith: the two are basically identical, except an object modification (which hopefully is just an helper) | |
| 14:58:00 | bauzas | tests diverge a little bit | |
| 14:58:07 | dansmith | so even less necessary to have pushed up a competing patch after the first one was the same solution? | |