| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2018-10-12 | |||
| 13:22:19 | leakypipes | mriedem: lol. thx moleman. | |
| 13:22:34 | leakypipes | there he is! | |
| 13:23:12 | hansmoleman | https://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/thisisaknife.gif?w=655 | |
| 13:24:27 | hansmoleman | gmann: do you have a patch to cap max microversions for tempest in devstack for rocky yet? | |
| 13:25:30 | hansmoleman | nope, i'll do that | |
| 13:30:17 | openstackgerrit | sean mooney proposed openstack/nova master: harden placement init under wsgi https://review.openstack.org/610034 | |
| 13:33:35 | sean-k-mooney | ^ that may be dumb but its my attempt to fix part of a downstream bug in triplo that i dont have an enviornment to reproduce and or time to reporduce. | |
| 13:34:01 | hansmoleman | comments inline | |
| 13:34:09 | hansmoleman | efried: what's the process now for placement bug fixes? | |
| 13:34:15 | hansmoleman | fix in nova and cherry pick to placement or vice versa? | |
| 13:35:39 | sean-k-mooney | oh right placement is moving... | |
| 13:39:29 | mordred | leakypipes, hansmoleman: +1 left - I agree with sean-k-mooney's followup comment | |
| 13:40:56 | PapaOurs | hansmoleman: AFAIUC, we need two changes | |
| 13:41:11 | PapaOurs | hansmoleman: and just waiting for the placement one to be merged before merging the nova one | |
| 13:41:16 | PapaOurs | but not Depends-On | |
| 13:42:00 | finucannot | hansmoleman: What would it cost me to get you to look at https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/queens+topic:bug/1746393 again? | |
| 13:42:30 | finucannot | hansmoleman: It's not something I'm going to be able to test with the Intel NFV CI but I did manually verify it | |
| 13:45:23 | PapaOurs | does someone remember the link for querying all the OpenStack project repos ? | |
| 13:46:17 | hansmoleman | codesearch.openstack.org | |
| 13:46:57 | PapaOurs | hansmoleman: <3 | |
| 13:47:24 | hansmoleman | finucannot: how far back to plan on trying to get those backports? has that code just always been broken? | |
| 13:47:33 | hansmoleman | that stack seems extremely risky to me | |
| 13:47:40 | hansmoleman | especially when we have 0 CI | |
| 13:49:51 | hansmoleman | s/to plan/do you plan/ | |
| 13:50:00 | finucannot | hansmoleman: Ideally back to when support for emulator threads was first added (Ocata) but Ocata is em now and I haven't even looked at the practicality of Pike. Queens would be good enough | |
| 13:50:33 | finucannot | Plus, Pike is just security/data loss bugs now anyway, right? | |
| 13:50:50 | hansmoleman | no | |
| 13:50:57 | hansmoleman | EM means we no longer have phases like that | |
| 13:51:29 | hansmoleman | https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html#maintenance-phases | |
| 13:51:37 | finucannot | The more you know | |
| 13:52:02 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: ya i proably should have submitted it against placement. | |
| 13:52:02 | finucannot | But yeah, given how specific this is, whatever risk there is is going limited to select use cases | |
| 13:52:30 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: ill abandon after the ci results are in i mainly pushed to make sure this did not make anything else explode | |
| 13:52:59 | finucannot | That said, I have no idea how else to mitigate that risk besides the unit tests, manual testing that's already been done and downstream QE we'll be doing for this | |
| 13:54:22 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: get with cdent in #openstack-placement since he's got a patch series already that is cleaning up the placement DB stuff. | |
| 13:54:42 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: Chris isn't here atm, but just grab him whenevs | |
| 13:56:22 | sean-k-mooney | leakypipes: sure. im likely not going to be working on this till next week. im in munich for new heir orentation from sunday to wednesday so i wont get much done until thrusday | |
| 13:57:10 | leakypipes | ack, no worries. | |
| 13:57:26 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: btw, is "new heir orentation" something to do with the royal family? | |
| 13:57:44 | leakypipes | :P | |
| 13:57:44 | sean-k-mooney | also apparently i joinded redhat 90days ago as of monday. | |
| 13:57:53 | leakypipes | sean-k-mooney: congrats! :) | |
| 13:58:54 | PapaOurs | sean-k-mooney: I'm sure you'll love sales talks | |
| 13:59:24 | sean-k-mooney | PapaOurs: apparently we are not ment to bring our laptops to the 2 days of training... | |
| 13:59:41 | PapaOurs | sean-k-mooney: tbh I don't remember mine | |
| 13:59:44 | sean-k-mooney | also i miss octoberfest in munich by a week | |
| 13:59:59 | PapaOurs | I mean, whether I used my laptop | |
| 14:00:10 | PapaOurs | but you'll get a free fedora | |
| 14:00:18 | PapaOurs | hum | |
| 14:00:25 | PapaOurs | looks like we're discussing corp here | |
| 14:00:28 | PapaOurs | shit | |
| 14:00:49 | PapaOurs | fortunately, I'm hidden behind my nick | |
| 14:00:49 | sean-k-mooney | :) | |
| 14:07:04 | fried_rice | hansmoleman: Same fix (as far as possible) with same change-id in both nova and placement | |
| 14:08:08 | melwitt | ||
| 14:10:58 | hansmoleman | fried_rice: does order of repos matter? | |
| 14:11:09 | hansmoleman | placement first so it's not lost after the extraction? | |
| 14:11:28 | fried_rice | I don't think so | |
| 14:11:59 | fried_rice | Like, propose it to both at the same time, but I don't think it matters if one merges first as long as they both merge. | |
| 14:12:47 | hansmoleman | that's kind of weird | |
| 14:12:55 | hansmoleman | if one merges and the other has changes | |
| 14:12:59 | hansmoleman | i think of it like backports | |
| 14:13:12 | hansmoleman | you want to start in the clean target first and then cherry pick (backport) to nova | |
| 14:13:26 | hansmoleman | but what do i know | |
| 14:16:21 | hansmoleman | SteelyDan: re our conversation the other day about attaching volumes while resized, apparently it's fine once you revert, the volume attached while the server is in VERIFY_RESIZE state continues to be attached when you revert | |
| 14:16:30 | hansmoleman | now, i'm using the fake driver in devstack so i can have 2 computes on a single node, | |
| 14:16:42 | hansmoleman | so i'm not sure that attached volume is actually still in the guest... | |
| 14:17:06 | SteelyDan | hansmoleman: ugh | |
| 14:17:39 | hansmoleman | i don't have a 2-node devstack with libvirt handy | |
| 14:21:55 | fried_rice | hansmoleman: I guess if you want to be that strict about it, sure. But which would you merge first? The nova side so you can test it fully? | |
| 14:22:23 | hansmoleman | as in devstack runs? | |
| 14:22:42 | hansmoleman | that probably makes more sense... | |
| 14:23:11 | fried_rice | Okay. | |
| 14:23:55 | hansmoleman | cfriesen: do you guys care about this? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:stable/queens+topic:bug/1746393 | |
| 14:24:02 | fried_rice | hansmoleman: To drop a placement fix at this point, you need to propose it to both the nova and placement repositories with the same change-id, but merge the nova side first. | |
| 14:24:06 | fried_rice | There, it's official. | |
| 14:25:37 | hansmoleman | it's not official until it's engraved in stone tablets | |
| 14:25:47 | sean-k-mooney | fried_rice: so for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/610034/ i need to just cherrypick it ot placement too | |
| 14:26:53 | fried_rice | sean-k-mooney: afaik there's no actual cherry pick between different repositories. But in spirit, yes. | |
| 14:27:11 | fried_rice | sean-k-mooney: And -W it until ^ merges. | |
| 14:27:15 | sean-k-mooney | fried_rice: you have to manually add the other repo as a remote | |
| 14:27:38 | hansmoleman | finucannot: i guess i still feel that backport is really more about a feature than a bug | |
| 14:27:44 | hansmoleman | it's an optimization thing isn't it? | |
| 14:27:50 | sean-k-mooney | if placement was extracted correctly with its git history it shoudl work but ya | |
| 14:28:13 | hansmoleman | i.e. when cpu pinning was added, or emulator thread policy, people didn't think about them being used together all the way, so it was less optimal, | |
| 14:28:17 | hansmoleman | and that's fixed since rocky | |
| 14:28:22 | fried_rice | sean-k-mooney: Having them under the same change-id ought to be sufficient. If you included the commit hash, you would have to also include the repo name for that commit. | |
| 14:28:22 | hansmoleman | but doesn't mean we need to backport that to queens | |
| 14:28:49 | fried_rice | sean-k-mooney: But they won't match exactly, if for no other reason than the file names. | |
| 14:29:13 | sean-k-mooney | fried_rice: right | |
| 14:30:52 | sean-k-mooney | hansmoleman: we may backport it downstram but it depens i dont think we need to backport to queens upstream | |
| 14:31:00 | finucannot | hansmoleman: Not sure, to be honest. Guess that comes down to interpretation | |
| 14:31:30 | sean-k-mooney | the downstream but was reported against rocky so that is likely all that would be useful to backport to in anycase | |
| 14:31:55 | hansmoleman | i've -1ed the bottom queens backport then | |
| 14:31:59 | hansmoleman | if you want my official opinion | |
| 14:32:12 | finucannot | Heh. Fair :) | |
| 14:32:19 | sean-k-mooney | hansmoleman: wait which patch | |
| 14:32:25 | hansmoleman | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/588570/ | |
| 14:33:00 | sean-k-mooney | oh i was talking about the placement one im not sure about that one | |
| 14:33:08 | hansmoleman | too late | |