| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2019-10-30 | |||
| 13:50:25 | smcginnis | Thanks mriedem | |
| 13:50:39 | smcginnis | Did that last one make it, or still stuck in recheck hell? | |
| 13:56:28 | mriedem | merged late last night | |
| 13:58:59 | smcginnis | Nice! | |
| 14:06:07 | elod | mriedem: thanks, i'm a bit sad that gibi's patch sets couldn't make it, but of course, those are not crucial to be part of the final release o:) | |
| 14:06:51 | elod | so, the final and em patch looks good, thanks! | |
| 14:26:31 | openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/nova master: Log some stats for image pre-cache https://review.opendev.org/688173 | |
| 14:39:30 | mriedem | someone want to take a pass at mel's host_status UNKNOWN policy change patch? i'm +2 on it. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679181/ | |
| 14:39:57 | mriedem | same with gibi's evacuate support for qos ports series https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:bp/support-move-ops-with-qos-ports-ussuri+status:open | |
| 14:40:49 | mriedem | dansmith: when you get a chance it'd be cool if you could take a pass at my re-worked fix for the cross_az_attach=False bug fix https://review.opendev.org/#/c/469675/ | |
| 14:41:12 | mriedem | should be 35% less gross than before | |
| 14:41:13 | dansmith | mriedem: enqueued | |
| 14:41:28 | dansmith | 35.0%? pretty precise grossness measurement | |
| 14:41:39 | mriedem | i was in the lab all last night | |
| 14:41:57 | dansmith | heh | |
| 14:42:23 | efried | mriedem: I was working through that | |
| 14:42:47 | efried | I have some questions, so dansmith if you wouldn't mind holding off approving it... | |
| 14:43:01 | mriedem | efried: which? the az one? | |
| 14:43:08 | efried | sorry, the host_status-unknown one | |
| 14:43:13 | mriedem | oh | |
| 14:43:27 | mriedem | dan and i are talking about the az one | |
| 14:43:36 | efried | ack | |
| 14:55:58 | sean-k-mooney | dansmith: thanks for reviewing the image metadta prefilter series. ill try and adress your comments this week | |
| 14:56:18 | dansmith | sean-k-mooney: np | |
| 14:56:45 | mriedem | easy multi-cell functional test-only change that's been sitting a long time https://review.opendev.org/#/c/452006/ | |
| 14:56:56 | mriedem | 2.5 years... | |
| 14:57:44 | dansmith | let's not rush that one | |
| 15:00:55 | efried | mriedem, melwitt: I'm +2 on the host_status UNKNOWN policy patch, but would like some help understanding a thing before +Wing. (No hurry) | |
| 15:03:41 | efried | mriedem: how come those other release patches are stacked on the queens-em one? | |
| 15:03:58 | dansmith | mriedem: for N volumes your patch also avoids making N volume.get() calls instead opting for the bulk query once yeah? | |
| 15:03:58 | mriedem | no particular reason, laziness | |
| 15:04:04 | efried | ight | |
| 15:04:17 | mriedem | dansmith: yeah - which is where i mentioned i could split that part out if it helps | |
| 15:04:42 | dansmith | oh wait | |
| 15:05:01 | dansmith | it actually just does volume.get() on each one in _get_volumes_for_bdms() | |
| 15:05:23 | dansmith | I was thinking this was an improvement, but it just moves where you make all the individual calls | |
| 15:07:59 | mriedem | efried: i replied in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679181/ | |
| 15:08:35 | mriedem | dansmith: yeah, i mentioned using GET /volumes with a list but as commented i don't think that would work and i should remove that comment | |
| 15:08:52 | dansmith | yeah, sorry, just pulling all this context back in | |
| 15:09:04 | mriedem | it does mean we'd avoid multiple GETs on the same volume, but you can't really boot from volume with multiple servers and the same pre-existing volume anyway | |
| 15:09:37 | mriedem | unless it's a multiattach volume anyway | |
| 15:10:41 | melwitt | efried: let me fix it, I think I just spaced bc gmann added those two in a patch below mine | |
| 15:10:52 | mriedem | melwitt: do it in a follow up | |
| 15:11:00 | mriedem | it's hard enough getting things through the gate right now | |
| 15:11:00 | melwitt | ok | |
| 15:11:14 | efried | I just want to understand why the tests work | |
| 15:11:21 | efried | still reading mriedem's reply... | |
| 15:11:25 | mriedem | efried: the policy docs are just an omission | |
| 15:11:39 | mriedem | note that those are just docs...not code | |
| 15:11:40 | efried | oh, that's just a doc thing? (/me doesn't really understand policy) | |
| 15:11:41 | efried | got it. | |
| 15:11:57 | mriedem | right, the policy rule is real, the API method / route stuff is docs | |
| 15:12:38 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add functional test for two-cell scheduler behaviors https://review.opendev.org/452006 | |
| 15:13:13 | mriedem | ah gdi, fake_nodes | |
| 15:13:33 | efried | melwitt, mriedem: +W. If you want to hit any of that other stuff in the fup too, feel free, but none of it was super important. | |
| 15:14:08 | melwitt | ok, thanks | |
| 15:14:20 | gibi | mriedem: fix is on the way, and then I will +2 it | |
| 15:14:27 | efried | melwitt: also, wouldn't hurt to update the bp text for at least these two things: | |
| 15:14:27 | efried | - the name of the policy rule | |
| 15:14:27 | efried | - the fact that the host_status field is omitted, not included as "" | |
| 15:15:01 | efried | (there turned out to be no spec for this, right?) | |
| 15:15:03 | melwitt | ah, right, will do | |
| 15:15:09 | efried | thx | |
| 15:15:10 | melwitt | yeah no spec | |
| 15:15:25 | openstackgerrit | Balazs Gibizer proposed openstack/nova master: Add functional test for two-cell scheduler behaviors https://review.opendev.org/452006 | |
| 15:18:32 | dansmith | mriedem: question for you in there, and figure I'm standing by for you to remove that comment and split the patches if you're going to | |
| 15:19:27 | mriedem | i'll split the patches if needed but not keen to if i can help it, at least for the volume GET stuff since that touches a lot of unit tests. the config option docs and such are easy to split out though, but also minor. | |
| 15:19:48 | dansmith | mriedem: yep I figured, hence my comment about it :) | |
| 15:20:05 | dansmith | it's easy enough to see what test changes are related to the refactor so I'm not too concerned | |
| 15:20:15 | dansmith | mriedem: are you planning to backport this? | |
| 15:26:42 | mriedem | dansmith: replied, it's about pinning the instance to the default 'nova' zone which is a no-no | |
| 15:27:04 | mriedem | dansmith: backporting it would probably be difficult, at least past train | |
| 15:28:01 | mriedem | i guess it depends on how much people/distros need it, but it's extremely latent and from talking to smorrison about this he says his users just have to always specify an az | |
| 15:28:05 | dansmith | mriedem: okay, I didn't think about the cinder default being 'nova' | |
| 15:28:17 | dansmith | mriedem: sure, was just curious | |
| 15:29:38 | mriedem | actually it won't even backport cleanly to train b/c of https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667133/ | |
| 15:29:58 | mriedem | that's pretty trivial to resolve though | |
| 15:33:33 | openstackgerrit | Matt Riedemann proposed openstack/nova master: Add support matrix for Delete (Abort) on-going live migration https://review.opendev.org/625781 | |
| 15:35:01 | artom | mriedem, can https://review.opendev.org/#/c/649419/ be expected to merge? I want to know if I can backport it internally to Newton | |
| 15:35:06 | dansmith | mriedem: yeah, it's cool, I just kinda thought you'd be wanting that, is all | |
| 15:35:09 | artom | Or should I stick to the merged pike version | |
| 15:37:22 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Booth proposed openstack/nova master: Cleanup libvirt test_mount unit tests https://review.opendev.org/692173 | |
| 15:37:22 | openstackgerrit | Matthew Booth proposed openstack/nova master: Allow alternate implementations of mount/umount in _HostMountState https://review.opendev.org/692174 | |
| 15:38:20 | mriedem | artom: ask your stable core brethren | |
| 15:39:03 | artom | lyarwood, around? plz to be lookink at https://review.opendev.org/#/c/649419/ :) | |
| 15:39:20 | mriedem | dansmith: i'm cool with not backporting it and letting it bake on master. if let's say some edge distro product thing needed it then i could be convinced to backport... | |
| 15:39:26 | artom | lyarwood, it would facilitate the backport for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1633909, which we want for OSP10z14 | |
| 15:39:26 | openstack | artom: Error: Error getting bugzilla.redhat.com bug #1633909: NotPermitted | |
| 15:39:31 | dansmith | mriedem: heh | |
| 15:39:36 | artom | openstack, apologies | |
| 15:40:18 | artom | Ah, he took the whole day off as PTO | |
| 15:40:27 | mriedem | there are others | |
| 15:40:52 | mriedem | there is one in france always saying he's happy to review backports | |
| 15:41:55 | artom | He's on PTO as well | |
| 15:42:00 | mriedem | jesus | |
| 15:42:02 | dansmith | artom: I can hit that if you want | |
| 15:42:13 | artom | dansmith, thank you :) | |
| 15:42:23 | dansmith | seems reasonable, it's a nasty issue, if we still care about it | |
| 15:42:34 | artom | melwitt, you were next on the list! But dansmith preempted tht | |
| 15:42:37 | artom | *that | |