Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-nova - 2019-02-20
06:59:43 openstackgerrit Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: Calculate RequestGroup resource provider mapping https://review.openstack.org/616239
06:59:44 openstackgerrit Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: Fill the RequestGroup mapping during schedule https://review.openstack.org/619528
06:59:44 openstackgerrit Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: ksa auth conf and client for cyborg access https://review.openstack.org/631242
06:59:44 openstackgerrit Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: WIP: Add Cyborg device profile groups to spec obj. https://review.openstack.org/631243
06:59:45 openstackgerrit Sundar Nadathur proposed openstack/nova master: Create and bind Cyborg ARQs. https://review.openstack.org/631244
07:07:48 alex_xu melwitt: I did a test on your patch. I create VM with admin user, then I switch to demo user, I still can show that VM.
07:09:30 alex_xu melwitt: this because https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L425 the show API policy check without instance project id as target
07:28:22 openstackgerrit Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: WIP detach root volume API changes https://review.openstack.org/623981
07:28:30 openstackgerrit Boxiang Zhu proposed openstack/nova master: Convert to raw format into rbd volume https://review.openstack.org/638080
07:57:44 melwitt alex_xu: thank you for the example. I finally understand your point. sorry I didn't understand it previously
07:58:14 alex_xu melwitt: np...you still wake up...
07:58:18 melwitt I kept thinking the policy project_id check would do it, but if there is no target, I'm not sure what it would be checking. so that is my bad
07:58:39 melwitt yeah, made a mistake of checking my zuul results before going to sleep :P
07:58:45 Dinesh_Bhor How can I restrict the resize/migration of an instance to the same host-aggregate ?
07:58:50 alex_xu hahaha
08:00:21 alex_xu Dinesh_Bhor: for resize, you probably can choice a different flavor which with different aggregate metadata. probably no way for migration
08:04:00 Dinesh_Bhor alex_xu: Okay, We actually have networks based on host-aggregates and we would like to restrict the VM's resize/migration to the same aggregate for security reasons.
08:04:12 openstackgerrit melanie witt proposed openstack/nova master: WIP Count instances from mappings and cores/ram from placement https://review.openstack.org/638073
08:04:37 alex_xu Dinesh_Bhor: ah, sorry, I misunderstand, you want it in the same agg.
08:04:56 alex_xu Dinesh_Bhor: I guess it should work as expected in the current implementation
08:05:40 alex_xu if your flavor with aggregate metadata in the beginning. I guess you don't have that.
08:06:08 Dinesh_Bhor alex_xu: yes, we don't have them
08:07:36 alex_xu Dinesh_Bhor: the only way I have is using resize to update a flavor with agg metadat, then limited into the same agg. otherwise I don't think we are any existed method to do that.
08:08:56 Dinesh_Bhor alex_xu: okay, Thanks. I will check it
08:09:59 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: Adds the server group info into show server detail API. https://review.openstack.org/621474
08:16:55 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Calculate RequestGroup resource provider mapping https://review.openstack.org/616239
08:16:56 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Fill the RequestGroup mapping during schedule https://review.openstack.org/619528
08:16:56 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Pass resource provider mapping to neutronv2 api https://review.openstack.org/616240
08:16:57 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Recalculate request group - RP mapping during re-schedule https://review.openstack.org/619529
08:16:57 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Send RP uuid in the port binding https://review.openstack.org/569459
08:16:58 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Test boot with more ports with bandwidth request https://review.openstack.org/573317
08:16:58 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Remove port allocation during detach https://review.openstack.org/622421
08:16:59 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Record requester in the InstancePCIRequest https://review.openstack.org/625310
08:16:59 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add pf_interface_name tag to passthrough_whitelist https://review.openstack.org/625311
08:17:00 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Ensure that bandwidth and VF are from the same PF https://review.openstack.org/623543
08:17:00 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Support server create with ports having resource request https://review.openstack.org/636360
08:17:01 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor _heal_allocations_for_instance to make place for port healing https://review.openstack.org/637953
08:17:01 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Refactor _heal_allocations_for_instance (2) https://review.openstack.org/637954
08:17:02 openstackgerrit Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: nova-manage: heal port allocations https://review.openstack.org/637955
08:41:36 bauzas good morning Nova
08:44:41 gibi good morning bauzas
08:45:14 openstackgerrit Zhenyu Zheng proposed openstack/nova master: WIP detach root volume API changes https://review.openstack.org/623981
08:51:00 bauzas gibi: :-)
09:15:18 openstackgerrit Silvan Kaiser proposed openstack/nova master: Exec systemd-run without --user flag in Quobyte driver https://review.openstack.org/554195
09:33:53 openstackgerrit Yongli He proposed openstack/nova master: Adds the server group info into show server detail API. https://review.openstack.org/621474
09:36:36 openstackgerrit Silvan Kaiser proposed openstack/nova master: Added mount fstype based validation of Quobyte mounts https://review.openstack.org/522245
09:38:24 kaisers kaisers
09:39:09 kaisers *dang* missed out on the hotkey
09:40:00 kaisers stephenfin: Hi! Updated both CLs based on yesterdays feedback :)
09:40:10 stephenfin ack
09:48:42 kashyap gibi: The Zuul is -2 here because the parent patch is not merged yet? -- https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637152/
09:51:53 stephenfin kaisers: +2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/554195/ *but* I do have some comments that I'd really like to see addressed, if you have time. They're not blockers though
09:55:59 kaisers stephenfin: can be solved, np
09:57:54 openstackgerrit Lajos Katona proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add support for microversion v2.69 https://review.openstack.org/637234
09:58:30 openstackgerrit Lajos Katona proposed openstack/python-novaclient master: Add support for microversion v2.70 https://review.openstack.org/637234
09:58:45 stephenfin kaisers: Cool. Also +2 on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/522245/ with two nice-to-have but not blocking nits
10:05:51 stephenfin Hmm, no gibi. How odd
10:06:14 stephenfin bauzas: You're next in line. Could you push this trivial follow up patch through? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636967
10:06:52 stephenfin bauzas: Next in line for reviews and not for the throne, I'm afraid. They'd never accept a Frenchman for that
10:07:04 stephenfin ...unless the alternative was Boris Johnson, maybe
10:07:41 bauzas stephenfin: sorry I don't remember which trivial patch to push ? ;)
10:08:32 bauzas and well, for the throne, we had some history here about kings...
10:09:14 stephenfin My policy on trivial patches is pro having it and pro pushing it
10:09:50 kashyap stephenfin: Re-thinking is a bug really necessary here?: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637578/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py
10:10:05 kashyap s/Re-thinking/Re-thinking,/
10:10:14 bauzas stephenfin: ah sorry, I misunderstood the "this"
10:10:20 bauzas stephenfin: but sure, yeah
10:11:00 stephenfin kashyap: How so?
10:11:22 kashyap stephenfin: This line: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637578/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py@4961
10:11:41 kashyap stephenfin: Where you guessed a bug might be useful
10:12:15 stephenfin kashyap: I was referring to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/637578/1/nova/virt/libvirt/driver.py@4957
10:12:36 kashyap Correct, I posted the wrong line
10:12:41 stephenfin Where we create a PTY device for non-QEMU/KVM, non-parallels hypervisors
10:13:12 bauzas stephenfin: I just +1d because I have a question
10:13:17 bauzas (even for a nit :p )
10:13:37 kashyap stephenfin: Right, but the non-{QEMU/KVM, -Parellels} get a PTY device anyway.
10:14:15 stephenfin kashyap: Not previously though, right? Previously the 'if CONF.serial_console.enabled:' line in '_create_pty_device' would have stopped that happening
10:14:23 kashyap You want to capture that the existing code didn't create a serial device?
10:14:54 kashyap stephenfin: Previously too, according the existing table; and I checked with an s390x maintainer, too, FWIW
10:15:22 stephenfin kashyap: Assuming _that_ is the incorrect behavior, yes
10:15:53 kashyap Heh, what a maze; I'll see about what to file once I re-read the old code again.
10:15:55 stephenfin kashyap: To be completely clear, I don't know if it should have one or not. I'm going on Georg's comments
10:16:16 kashyap stephenfin: Georg says it's OK to not file one.
10:16:19 stephenfin What are the non-QEMU/KVM, non-Parallels libvirt drivers we support
10:16:21 stephenfin *?
10:16:26 kashyap stephenfin: zKVM
10:16:47 kashyap More accurately called "z/VM" I guess
10:17:55 stephenfin bauzas: Replied, but the answer is here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/636627/1/nova/conf/base.py@29
10:17:56 kashyap stephenfin: It is z/VM (ignore the zKVM bit)
10:18:52 stephenfin kashyap: I can get onboard with that, but I do think that we should have a test and call out the change in behavior in the commit message if there is no bug
10:19:21 stephenfin Otherwise we've got a change in behavior with no indication to future reviewers of the patch as to why that change happened
10:19:23 kashyap stephenfin: Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
10:19:58 kashyap I'm all for capturing the intention of a change as clearly as we can :-)
10:33:47 gibi bauzas: could you look at pike backport please? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603044 the original fix was merged on master when during the Queens cycle
10:34:01 bauzas gibi: ack
10:34:32 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: compute: Reject resize requests when the source host is down https://review.openstack.org/623489
10:35:08 gibi bauzas: thanks
10:35:10 openstackgerrit Lee Yarwood proposed openstack/nova master: compute: Reject resize requests when the source host is down https://review.openstack.org/623489
10:35:42 lyarwood mdbooth_: ^ dropped the ignore_forced_down stuff, lets see if anyone raises the LM use case I was talking about.
10:37:34 bauzas gibi: I have multiple concerns with the backport

Earlier   Later