| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-07-29 | |||
| 15:28:11 | cdent | mriedem: pretty soon having reviewers at all will be a pipe dream | |
| 15:28:25 | sean-k-mooney | dont we already have a requirement that code must not be in WIP state to enter the runways | |
| 15:28:26 | mriedem | cool | |
| 15:28:46 | mriedem | it wasn't wip | |
| 15:29:06 | aspiers | mriedem: nevertheless some of the SEV work is enabling stuff that kashyap and sean-k-mooney are working on, so at least it's not *entirely* selfish ... | |
| 15:29:10 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure which revew set ye were refering to by the way | |
| 15:29:12 | mriedem | anyway, i shouldn't have said anything, i'm just cranky. woken up too early, had to fix the runways etherpad, etc etc | |
| 15:29:27 | mriedem | aspiers: i'm not complaining about SEV stuff at all | |
| 15:29:35 | sean-k-mooney | aspiers: well the only depency i have on the sev work is the harding patch | |
| 15:29:41 | aspiers | mriedem: I know, but I was trying to boost your morale a bit ;-) | |
| 15:29:52 | mriedem | SEV does not boost my morale but ok | |
| 15:29:52 | sean-k-mooney | which is not really part of the series more a depency for my blueprint and yours | |
| 15:30:01 | aspiers | sean-k-mooney: sshhh, I'm trying to cheer up mriedem ;-) | |
| 15:30:13 | sean-k-mooney | hehe ok | |
| 15:30:17 | artom | Time for the Riderman song? | |
| 15:30:23 | aspiers | sean-k-mooney: also you got the getDomainCapabilities code from me for free | |
| 15:30:29 | cdent | oh, I misunderstood. I was trying to mriedem more sad. | |
| 15:30:33 | aspiers | haha | |
| 15:30:36 | sean-k-mooney | aspiers: yes but i technically never needed it | |
| 15:30:43 | aspiers | bah :) | |
| 15:30:58 | aspiers | sean-k-mooney: what about https://review.opendev.org/#/c/673151/, maybe that is useful for you too | |
| 15:31:01 | sean-k-mooney | aspiers: im just using it since its there | |
| 15:31:17 | kashyap | aspiers: Selectively reading the scroll | |
| 15:31:36 | sean-k-mooney | i havenet seen that patch before. so i dont know | |
| 15:31:37 | kashyap | aspiers: Hehe, so long as you're in the console, good. My assistance is over ;-) | |
| 15:31:40 | aspiers | mriedem: I mean, I was trying to cheer you up by saying that I'm hoping to contribute more than just SEV and its peripheries | |
| 15:31:53 | aspiers | sean-k-mooney: I wrote it on Sat | |
| 15:32:14 | aspiers | sean-k-mooney: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2019-07-27.log.html#t2019-07-27T18:15:17 | |
| 15:32:21 | sean-k-mooney | aspiers: but i would prefer to merge teh code i have and then see if we can refactor later | |
| 15:32:45 | aspiers | sean-k-mooney: it's not a refactor and I don't think it overlaps with your changes | |
| 15:32:56 | aspiers | well there is a bit of refactoring in there | |
| 15:33:01 | aspiers | but that's not the main point | |
| 15:33:05 | aspiers | anyway gotta go again | |
| 15:33:07 | aspiers | biab | |
| 15:37:02 | kashyap | mriedem: Yes, to be fair -- parts from SEV work in Nova _do_ help the Secure Boot stuff and some of what Sean's doing. | |
| 15:37:51 | aspiers | I wasn't trying to portray SEV as the saviour of nova ;-) or even anything significantly helpful. Just stating my wish to contribute more to nova *beyond* SEV in the future | |
| 15:38:11 | aspiers | I've already done bits and pieces here and there | |
| 15:38:16 | aspiers | but would like to do more | |
| 15:38:30 | kashyap | aspiers: Heh, you don't need to defend yourself _that_ much by feeling like you're walking on some eggshells. | |
| 15:39:26 | kashyap | It's good work, and enables a useful and imporant usecase. | |
| 15:39:32 | aspiers | sure, I don't feel under attack either ;) | |
| 15:40:13 | kashyap | Okido; then let's keep maintaining our inner tranquility.. | |
| 15:41:14 | kashyap | s/.././ | |
| 15:42:41 | eandersson | sean-k-mooney, I tried to backport the prelude patch needed for | |
| 15:42:42 | eandersson | https://review.opendev.org/#/c/672855/ | |
| 15:42:52 | eandersson | but I think I'll have to leave that for someone else | |
| 15:42:59 | eandersson | So many changes between Stein and Rocky on that front | |
| 15:56:20 | sean-k-mooney | eandersson: sure once its merged on master then people on teh stable/core teams will be able to backport it if needed or i can try to take a look | |
| 16:10:15 | aspiers | kashyap: does this look capable? http://paste.openstack.org/show/755079/ | |
| 16:10:18 | aspiers | I don't see any shims | |
| 16:21:20 | aspiers | kashyap: so grub actually shows secure boot enabled! | |
| 16:21:22 | efried | phew, glad alex_xu and stephenfin were able to approve that get_domain_capabilities() patch. I was having nightmares. | |
| 16:21:32 | aspiers | hehe | |
| 16:21:47 | eandersson | Sounds good sean-k-mooney | |
| 16:22:00 | sean-k-mooney | i commented on the review by the way | |
| 16:22:02 | aspiers | efried: if that gave you nightmares, I dread to think what https://review.opendev.org/#/c/673151/ will do | |
| 16:22:22 | sean-k-mooney | just pointing out that it may change the message if we dont actully through the exception | |
| 16:22:23 | efried | ahcrap, is that *also* blocking the SEV work? | |
| 16:22:30 | sean-k-mooney | but i have not confimed that | |
| 16:22:39 | aspiers | efried: it's the first in the series | |
| 16:22:47 | aspiers | so, yeah :) | |
| 16:23:18 | eandersson | Yea - I wasn't sure if that was the case. | |
| 16:24:06 | efried | okay, so look, I'm probably not going to be able to +2 the super-libvirty things in that series, but as long as you've got folks like alex_xu and stephenfin to look, I guess you should be okay. | |
| 16:24:06 | sean-k-mooney | eandersson: worst case it just wont have a stack trace pointing to where it was thrown | |
| 16:24:16 | sean-k-mooney | because it was not raised | |
| 16:24:35 | sean-k-mooney | best case it will have a stack trace that point to where it was constucted | |
| 16:24:49 | sean-k-mooney | which is basically where we would have raised it before | |
| 16:25:08 | openstackgerrit | Vladyslav Drok proposed openstack/nova master: [libvirt] Check if domain is persistent on cleanup https://review.opendev.org/673332 | |
| 16:25:43 | aspiers | efried: I've added them. Next one is https://review.opendev.org/#/c/638680/ which you were previously +2 on. I think pretty much only changes since then have been to fix your nits and rebase | |
| 16:26:21 | aspiers | PS27 was +2 W+1 | |
| 16:27:16 | efried | ack. I've been procrastinating due to the prereqs. Was hoping to dive in again this week. | |
| 16:27:28 | aspiers | efried: oh, and also fixing tests which never got run before: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/638680/30..31/nova/tests/functional/libvirt/test_report_cpu_traits.py | |
| 16:28:05 | aspiers | so if you're happy with that ^^ and trust my rebasing skills then I guess it should be easy to recycle your previous +2 W+1 | |
| 16:29:42 | sean-k-mooney | eandersson: efried based on a simple test in the repel it will have no traceback | |
| 16:29:45 | sean-k-mooney | >>> val_error = ValueError() | |
| 16:29:46 | sean-k-mooney | >>> val_error.__traceback__ | |
| 16:29:48 | sean-k-mooney | >>> | |
| 16:30:13 | sean-k-mooney | >>> raise val_error | |
| 16:30:15 | sean-k-mooney | Traceback (most recent call last): | |
| 16:30:17 | sean-k-mooney | File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> | |
| 16:30:19 | sean-k-mooney | ValueError | |
| 16:30:39 | sean-k-mooney | >>> val_error.__traceback__ | |
| 16:30:41 | sean-k-mooney | <traceback object at 0x7fc44ac5db48> | |
| 16:30:46 | efried | aspiers: yup. But urgency again reduced by the fact that there's a big not-reviewable-by-me thingy in front of it again/still. | |
| 16:30:51 | sean-k-mooney | so it looks like the tracback is only compute when its raised | |
| 16:30:57 | efried | sean-k-mooney: ack, but that only matters if the traceback is being used somewhere up the chain | |
| 16:31:00 | efried | which afaict it isn't. | |
| 16:31:06 | efried | all we're doing is printing the exception | |
| 16:31:11 | efried | which is the same whether it's raised or not. | |
| 16:31:14 | sean-k-mooney | its not its just being logged | |
| 16:31:19 | efried | right | |
| 16:31:26 | sean-k-mooney | so i dont know if we care | |
| 16:31:29 | efried | I didn't -1 before | |
| 16:31:32 | efried | right, I don't know either. | |
| 16:31:37 | sean-k-mooney | i think we dont | |
| 16:31:42 | efried | I would have accepted either explanation, really. | |
| 16:31:55 | sean-k-mooney | just you were asking if they were the same and they technically arnt | |
| 16:32:01 | efried | Even if we want to say "this is future proofing in case someone wants to print this stack trace somewhere" | |
| 16:32:03 | sean-k-mooney | but not in a way that matters for our usecase | |
| 16:32:12 | efried | ++ thanks for the clarification. | |