| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-03-08 | |||
| 15:49:28 | aspiers | Sure | |
| 15:49:29 | mriedem | what are you talking about splitting out? | |
| 15:49:45 | aspiers | the call to getDomainCapabilities | |
| 15:50:13 | kashyap | mriedem: Yeah, the adding of getDomainCapablities() in libvirt/host.py | |
| 15:50:34 | aspiers | kashyap: I was also thinking about splitting this code move out https://review.openstack.org/#/c/633855/11/nova/virt/libvirt/utils.py | |
| 15:50:49 | mriedem | aspiers: ok, i see you already put the -W back on your own change that i don't want merged in stein at this point, so you know where i am on this | |
| 15:50:56 | kashyap | mriedem: This bit (line 680): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/633855/11/nova/virt/libvirt/host.py | |
| 15:51:34 | mriedem | sure, split that out even if to just make that change smaller and easier to grok | |
| 15:51:40 | mriedem | too much code in one patch == hard to review | |
| 15:51:43 | aspiers | mriedem: yes, that's also why I submitted https://review.openstack.org/#/c/641994/ | |
| 15:51:44 | kashyap | (Yeah, I agree with mriedem on AMD SEV for Stein, I'm afraid.) | |
| 15:52:15 | kashyap | aspiers: Yes. The machine_type_mappings() in a separate change is good, too. | |
| 15:52:21 | aspiers | There's not even a debate on that, since feature freeze was yesterday :) | |
| 15:52:31 | mriedem | aspiers: you'd be surprised | |
| 15:52:56 | aspiers | Haha OK, well I'm sure some vendors are insane but not us | |
| 15:54:10 | kashyap | It's the same story with upstream _kernel_ as well :D | |
| 15:54:20 | aspiers | Yup | |
| 15:54:25 | aspiers | SUSE knows all about that ... | |
| 15:54:27 | kashyap | Once they start cutting long-term 'stable' release, everyone starts running around headless-chickens | |
| 15:54:41 | kashyap | ... "we need to get this into the "long-term" release!" | |
| 15:54:56 | sean-k-mooney | kashyap: honestly i think that is better the feature backports | |
| 15:55:00 | gibi | mriedem, melwitt: I'm wondering about how to close the https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/bandwidth-resource-provider the spec talks about the server move operations that was not implemented in Stein so if we use that as a scope then the bp cannot be marked implemented | |
| 15:55:18 | kashyap | sean-k-mooney: Not saying it's bad :-) Just the reality and the incentive structure I guess | |
| 15:55:31 | mriedem | gibi: i think we can complete the blueprint in stein and have a separate blueprint for move operations in train | |
| 15:55:39 | aspiers | OK I'm done for the week. I'll look at splitting that out into 3 reviews next week | |
| 15:55:56 | aspiers | Have a good w/e all! o/ | |
| 15:56:16 | kashyap | aspiers: Just a heads-up, next week the first three days I'm travelling; so, if I'm slow on responding ... you know why :-) | |
| 15:56:20 | kashyap | Have a good one! | |
| 15:56:22 | aspiers | OK np :) | |
| 15:56:22 | gibi | mriedem: shall I remove the move operation from the old spec when I update that now? | |
| 15:56:45 | mriedem | gibi: are you going to amend the stein spec for the microversion and all the other stuff that came up? | |
| 15:57:07 | mriedem | i guess i'm not sure what you're asking me :) | |
| 15:57:51 | gibi | mriedem: yeah I'm plannig to amend the spec | |
| 15:57:58 | gibi | mriedem: so I can remove the move from the scope there | |
| 15:58:53 | mriedem | ok | |
| 15:59:01 | gibi | mriedem: ok | |
| 16:03:01 | gibi | mriedem: there are two trailing patche for the bandwidth series both can be considered bugfixes, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638711/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/639608/ what do you think, shall I push them forward before RC1? | |
| 16:09:33 | openstackgerrit | guang-yee proposed openstack/nova master: pass endpoint interface to Ironic client https://review.openstack.org/640879 | |
| 16:27:09 | mriedem | gibi: on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/639608/ i think that's already a potential bug because of not handling errors from claim_resources | |
| 16:27:27 | mriedem | so it's low priority for me, but i think it's a bug we can report and work on | |
| 16:27:57 | mriedem | as i said before that whole while loop needs to be refactored at some point (that whole damn build_instances method actually) | |
| 16:28:46 | mriedem | gibi: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638711/ isn't really a bug per se, but it's a performance optimization, so again i don't know that we need to rush it, but it's still good to have | |
| 16:29:14 | mriedem | you could report a low priority bug for tracking that if you wanted - as a perf issue | |
| 16:29:28 | mriedem | like i said, if i'm multi-creating 100 instances in one request, that's 100 separate GET /allocations calls | |
| 16:29:49 | mriedem | although, can you multi-create with a pre-created port...? | |
| 16:29:55 | mriedem | i'm not sure that is supported | |
| 16:30:19 | mriedem | that would be like multi-create with the same pre-created volume | |
| 16:30:23 | mriedem | so that likely doesn't work anyway | |
| 16:31:35 | openstackgerrit | Eric Fried proposed openstack/nova master: update gate test for removal of force evacuate https://review.openstack.org/641986 | |
| 16:32:09 | fried_rice | mriedem: sean-k-mooney stephenfin bauzas tssurya ^ | |
| 16:32:53 | fried_rice | http://logs.openstack.org/86/641986/2/check/nova-live-migration/6f6b678/job-output.txt.gz#_2019-03-08_14_32_56_004357 | |
| 16:33:47 | tssurya | fried_rice: oops | |
| 16:34:42 | cfriesen | mriedem: pretty sure you can't multi-create with pre-created port | |
| 16:34:43 | openstackgerrit | Kashyap Chamarthy proposed openstack/nova-specs master: Re-propose the spec to allow specifying a list of CPU models https://review.openstack.org/642030 | |
| 16:36:27 | mriedem | cfriesen: yeah i didn't think so.. | |
| 16:36:56 | mriedem | fried_rice: ah crap | |
| 16:37:09 | fried_rice | mriedem: Did I do it right? I have very little experience with the CLI | |
| 16:38:14 | cfriesen | Could someone take a look at this and clue me in why my new unit test (test_executable_exists_in_path(), in test_utils.py) is failing? Is this a zuul thing? It works fine locally. | |
| 16:38:26 | cfriesen | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/641932 | |
| 16:38:43 | mriedem | cfriesen: i looked at that the last time you asked and i couldn't spot anything obvious, but i'm sure there is some global you're hitting | |
| 16:39:05 | mriedem | fried_rice: yeah i think so, the 'common' options come before the command, and then the per-command options | |
| 16:39:12 | mriedem | i'm not sure if osc is that picky but i think novaclient is | |
| 16:39:40 | fried_rice | cfriesen: Have you tried full-pathing ls? | |
| 16:40:21 | cfriesen | fried_rice: the "ls" is fine, it's the call to libvirt_utils.executable_exists_in_path() that is unexpectedly failing | |
| 16:40:26 | fried_rice | duh, sorry, yeah | |
| 16:40:40 | fried_rice | I hadn't really parsed yet, that was just something that jumped out at a glance. | |
| 16:40:48 | cfriesen | it's totally reliable locally, fails every time in zuul | |
| 16:42:07 | fried_rice | cfriesen: ah, `type`. Shell builtins can be funny. There's a way to invoke a builtin as an executable, looking... | |
| 16:44:06 | fried_rice | cfriesen: Tough that it can't be reproduced locally; but you can try changing "type ..." to "builtin type ..." | |
| 16:45:16 | fried_rice | cfriesen: also, based on the comment, if what you truly care about is that it's an executable (as opposed to a function, alias, or builtin), you could use /usr/bin/which instead of type. | |
| 16:45:21 | mriedem | cfriesen: there is also this https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Testr#Reproducing_Failures | |
| 16:45:24 | mriedem | if you get desperate | |
| 16:45:38 | mriedem | ^ is how you can try to spot racing globals | |
| 16:46:02 | fried_rice | mriedem: whoosh, that could use some updating for stestr, huh | |
| 16:46:50 | mriedem | yeah probably | |
| 16:47:01 | mriedem | good thing anyone with a lp account can change it :) | |
| 16:50:25 | fried_rice | cfriesen: oh, sorry again, the problem is likely to be with $PATH, which definitely shouldn't include /tmp in real life. | |
| 16:50:54 | fried_rice | cfriesen: I'm able to repro locally. | |
| 16:52:01 | cfriesen | fried_rice: ah, excellent. wonder why it works locally here | |
| 16:52:13 | cfriesen | I don't have /tmp in PATH | |
| 16:52:31 | fried_rice | yeah, that's really strange cfriesen, because even if you had /tmp in your $PATH, mktemp creates in a randomly-named subdirectory. | |
| 16:56:13 | cfriesen | I think my bash must be messed up, with "type -P" returning whether the binary is executable even if it's not in $PATH | |
| 16:58:10 | cfriesen | fried_rice: interesting, fedora 29 behaves the same as mine | |
| 16:58:36 | cfriesen | maybe I'll just switch to "which". | |
| 16:58:47 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Dont' wait for VIF plugging during revert resize https://review.openstack.org/639396 | |
| 16:58:49 | mriedem | gibi: smallish thing in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638711/ | |
| 16:58:59 | mriedem | artom: are you going to ever fix that typo in your commit title? | |
| 16:59:06 | mriedem | don't make me -5 you | |
| 16:59:55 | artom | Christ :( | |
| 16:59:56 | openstackgerrit | Artom Lifshitz proposed openstack/nova master: Don't wait for VIF plugging during revert resize https://review.openstack.org/639396 | |
| 17:00:03 | artom | It's, err, the possessive form? | |
| 17:01:28 | fried_rice | cfriesen: using type -P with a full path is weird anyway. | |
| 17:02:08 | fried_rice | cfriesen: Are you actually wanting to know if a fully-pathed file is executable, or are you wanting to know if a name (not a full path) is in your PATH *and* executable? | |
| 17:02:49 | fried_rice | cause the former should really be done natively (os.stat | O_EXEC kind of thing) | |
| 17:03:33 | cfriesen | fried_rice: the latter. using the full path was just for the testcase. I'm trying to make sure that "swtpm" exists on the system before advertising support for emulated TPM on that node. | |
| 17:04:43 | fried_rice | cfriesen: Okay. Then the test case shouldn't use the full path either. | |
| 17:04:57 | cfriesen | one could argue that's up to the operator to ensure, in which case I could skip the check entirely. | |
| 17:05:11 | fried_rice | meh, it seems reasonable, if you can get it to work. | |
| 17:07:30 | mriedem | artom: so i don't think you need to change that finish_revert_migration interface at all, | |
| 17:07:47 | mriedem | we just need to be registering an event callback prior to call migrate_instance_fininsh | |