| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2022-02-17 | |||
| 04:16:30 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Separate flavor extra specs policy for server APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829626 | |
| 05:19:40 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Test PROJECT_ADMIN APIs with no legacy rule case https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/824845 | |
| 05:20:05 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Move rule_if_system() method to base test class https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/824475 | |
| 05:20:08 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Convert SYSTEM_ADMIN|READER to Admin and system scope https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/819390 | |
| 05:20:33 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Make more project level APIs scoped to project only https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828670 | |
| 05:22:27 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Server actions APIs scoped to project scope https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/824358 | |
| 05:22:36 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Modify remaining APIs as per RBAC new guidelines https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828994 | |
| 05:39:18 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Modify remaining APIs as per RBAC new guidelines https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828994 | |
| 05:39:32 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Separate flavor extra specs policy for server APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829626 | |
| 06:01:41 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Modify remaining APIs as per RBAC new guidelines https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828994 | |
| 06:03:28 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Separate flavor extra specs policy for server APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829626 | |
| 06:03:43 | opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/nova master: Separate flavor extra specs policy for server APIs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/829626 | |
| 08:23:54 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: re nvme multipath: I'm not against an exception if it is low risk (and it seems so). But I defer to bauzas to make the decision with the PTL hat. | |
| 08:24:47 | sean-k-mooney[m] | ack | |
| 08:34:25 | bauzas | gibi: sean-k-mooney: I agree with sean's proposal for a specless bp approval during Feb 22th meeting | |
| 08:34:38 | bauzas | this way, we will see whether we have a consensus | |
| 08:38:17 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: gibi: procedural -2 for https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/823941 | |
| 08:38:39 | gibi | bauzas: ack | |
| 08:39:07 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: if you want, you can review this change and +2 it | |
| 08:39:37 | bauzas | so, in case we agree on accepting it for Yoga, I'd just remove the -2 and do +W | |
| 08:40:37 | sean-k-mooney[m] | i have actully reviewed it and the lack of bluepinrt/bug was the main thing that stopped me form +2ing before | |
| 08:40:50 | sean-k-mooney[m] | but sure ill take a look again | |
| 08:41:07 | sean-k-mooney[m] | and ya we can decide on tuesday | |
| 08:42:39 | bauzas | ++ | |
| 08:42:57 | bauzas | sean-k-mooney: thanks btw. for having reviewed it | |
| 09:18:25 | yuval | hello | |
| 09:18:53 | yuval | I am just making sure the feature freeze is the week of the 21 meaning -> 25.2 right? | |
| 09:26:15 | gibi | yuval: I think the cut date for us will be 2.24 EOB but things that are approved can be rebased and merged after it | |
| 09:35:22 | yuval | whats EOB stand for? | |
| 09:36:12 | yuval | I have this: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821606 | |
| 09:36:30 | yuval | its not complicate - its just waiting for os-brick release to pass zuul | |
| 09:40:57 | gibi | end of business | |
| 09:41:25 | gibi | so basically end of the day of cores on the west coast | |
| 09:42:27 | yuval | got it | |
| 09:42:31 | gibi | yuval: as far as I see your os-brick patch is not part of that release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/823654 | |
| 09:42:36 | gibi | as this is not landed yetr | |
| 09:43:46 | yuval | gibi: this is not the important patch for me, although I do think brian want it in the release | |
| 09:44:07 | yuval | os-brick 5.2 dont have the lightos connector in it | |
| 09:44:15 | yuval | so zuul is failing in nova for it | |
| 09:44:29 | gibi | ahh so you only need https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/821603 | |
| 09:44:53 | yuval | yes | |
| 09:45:02 | gibi | and that is already landed and will be in os-brick 5.2 | |
| 09:45:03 | gibi | cool | |
| 09:45:10 | gibi | then I think you are on the good track | |
| 09:45:20 | yuval | ok, thanks | |
| 09:45:23 | gibi | I will check you nova patch soon | |
| 09:45:31 | yuval | that would be great | |
| 10:15:56 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: regarding the placment changes i think your current implemenation is likely ok to proceed with. we could add followup patches to try the alternitive approch if we do think the perfload resulst are refective fo a real regression | |
| 10:16:55 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I have to figure out how to make a less noisy perfload measurement because currenty the noise is comparabel with the amount of degradation I can measure | |
| 10:17:19 | gibi | but at least I did not make the performance halved :D | |
| 10:18:00 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I'm happy to make followup patches trying to improve especially as you gave directions with the SQL I can try to apply and measure | |
| 10:19:02 | sean-k-mooney | ya i dont really want to hold up the review on the subquery vs join approch escpially since i dont have performacne data one way or another | |
| 10:19:28 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: do you have any other comment that I should fix before FF? | |
| 10:19:39 | sean-k-mooney | so i woudl prefer to take the "get it working; then make it fast" approch provided there is no large regression | |
| 10:19:39 | gibi | I'm happy to if there is anythign | |
| 10:20:01 | sean-k-mooney | am not so far i have not got to the end of the series yet | |
| 10:20:13 | sean-k-mooney | but so far things look pretty good | |
| 10:21:06 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: thanks. let me know if I need to fix up thing quickly :) | |
| 10:21:12 | gibi | and thanks for the review | |
| 10:22:11 | sean-k-mooney | huh i didnt know that tuple unpacking work with dictionaries | |
| 10:22:16 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/placement/+/826491/8/placement/handlers/resource_provider.py | |
| 10:22:52 | sean-k-mooney | i understand how it could i guess i just tought that would be a syntax error | |
| 10:24:14 | gibi | yeah that was a nice touch from the python language that you can pack out into a dict | |
| 10:24:22 | gibi | into a dict value | |
| 10:24:28 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: its out of scope of the current spec but do you want to eventually support any_traits for root_required by the way | |
| 10:24:57 | gibi | I have no need for it right now, but if there is some use case from others then I can do it, most of the infra is in place for it | |
| 10:25:25 | gibi | probably the DB query needs some touching and the API needs to call the new trait parsing code | |
| 10:26:00 | sean-k-mooney | ok do we use root_required in nova today. i dont think so but perhaps we do | |
| 10:27:44 | sean-k-mooney | im not sure i have a usecase for any traits with it currently either but your serise will serve as a template for adding it if we need it in the future anyway | |
| 10:29:00 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: require_image_type_support, accelerators_filter and remote_managed_ports_filter prefilters are using it in nova today | |
| 10:29:17 | gibi | it is mosly to filter for compute capabilities | |
| 10:29:30 | gibi | and for that the simple AND trait list is enough | |
| 10:29:32 | sean-k-mooney | really i tought those were just in the unnamed group | |
| 10:29:48 | gibi | they could be there too | |
| 10:29:58 | gibi | both works today as we always allocate from the root | |
| 10:30:22 | gibi | the code is a bit simpler with root_required as you don't need to find the unnamed group | |
| 10:30:22 | sean-k-mooney | ya i just was not aware we converted to useing root_requried for that | |
| 10:30:35 | sean-k-mooney | ya | |
| 10:35:46 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: which patch are you adding the 1.39 micorversion is it the last patch | |
| 10:35:54 | gibi | yes | |
| 10:35:56 | sean-k-mooney | ah yes it is | |
| 10:36:19 | sean-k-mooney | ok i was just looking at the func test changes and wondering why you only had the negitive tests for 1.38 | |
| 10:36:28 | sean-k-mooney | ok that makes sense | |
| 11:16:45 | gibi | yuval: left comments in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/821606 | |
| 11:19:54 | yuval | Thanks | |
| 11:32:45 | sean-k-mooney | yuval: how much work woudl it be to entirely factor out the monitor thread and "message queue" out of the nova code | |
| 11:33:12 | sean-k-mooney | i really dont like the idea of os-brick or the volume driver spawnign a background thread | |
| 11:33:46 | sean-k-mooney | im pretty sure i have objected to adding that to os-brick on the mailing list in the past | |
| 11:34:26 | gibi | chateaulav: I have an idea what is wrong with the object compatibility code still in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/828369 | |
| 11:34:52 | gibi | chateaulav: left a comment | |
| 11:35:26 | sean-k-mooney | hum we likely can move the call to super to the end | |
| 11:36:33 | sean-k-mooney | gibi: actully looking at the version im a littel confused why was a version bump done for 1.18 and 1.19 | |
| 11:36:59 | gibi | sean-k-mooney: I think remotable methods need a bump | |
| 11:36:59 | sean-k-mooney | i have not looked at the patches that added those but adding a new method does not require an object version bump | |
| 11:37:10 | sean-k-mooney | ah | |
| 11:37:16 | sean-k-mooney | they are not jsut local | |
| 11:37:21 | sean-k-mooney | perhaps | |
| 11:38:00 | gibi | about the super call, I think yes we can move even way down | |
| 11:38:21 | sean-k-mooney | i would prefer not to put it in the midel of the compat ifs | |
| 11:38:47 | sean-k-mooney | so either have it first or after all of them ideally | |