| Posted | Nick | Remark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| #openstack-nova - 2026-09-14 | |||
| 16:24:08 | gibi_ | but I hear you gmaan that review comments might not be a best format for it | |
| 16:24:28 | gibi_ | For me it would be helpful to see other's oppinions before the actual PTG and be able to ask clarifying question about it to understand them. | |
| 16:24:49 | gibi_ | and I can also do a braindump myself so other can see it | |
| 16:25:05 | gmaan | yeah, i think we can start with what current criteria/expectation are to become nova-core for the nova-reviewers also and we can see what all we can change or add? | |
| 16:25:33 | bauzas | ++ | |
| 16:25:58 | bauzas | I can add my thoughts too in the patch | |
| 16:26:03 | gibi_ | should I put my views in an etherpad? mail? on that doc patch? | |
| 16:26:17 | gmaan | even it is from adjacent service reviewer/core, i feel strongly that we should not make it volunteer basis or because they are core in other service quality for nova-reviewer | |
| 16:26:36 | gmaan | gibi_: i prefer in etherpad if we are going to discuss in PTG | |
| 16:27:08 | gibi_ | I'm OK with an etherpad (I don't like email that much) | |
| 16:27:48 | gibi_ | So I will dump into the PTG one my ideas. Lets try to focus on understanding each other before we start debating. Shall we? | |
| 16:28:09 | gmaan | yeah, thanks gibi_ | |
| 16:28:20 | Uggla | sounds good | |
| 16:28:31 | gmaan | i mean sounds good to me but other can tell their preferece too | |
| 16:28:50 | gmaan | but i agree that email are hard to read and get consensus | |
| 16:28:53 | bauzas | I'd be prefering to help nova reviewers instead of other service reviewers but let's discuss this in the etherpad | |
| 16:29:27 | gibi_ | OK sounds like we have the next step. Thanks | |
| 16:29:30 | gibi_ | Uggla: back to you | |
| 16:29:53 | Uggla | thx gibi_ | |
| 16:30:36 | Uggla | Anything else you'd like to discuss ? | |
| 16:30:55 | Leo[m] | Hello | |
| 16:31:21 | Leo[m] | Just wanted to circle back on my spec about using hostname for ceph mon references: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova-specs/+/1000098 | |
| 16:31:32 | sean-k-mooney | o/ | |
| 16:31:46 | Leo[m] | It's been up for a while and I was hoping to get someone to look at it | |
| 16:32:01 | Leo[m] | Please let me know if there is anything else I can do on my end | |
| 16:32:01 | sean-k-mooney | Leo[m]: i assume you mean dns name so FQDN | |
| 16:32:03 | sean-k-mooney | not hostname | |
| 16:32:51 | Leo[m] | Yes, the intention is to use a generic CNAME record so the ceph mons can change without needing to change the references in Nova | |
| 16:33:01 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: for my topic i wanted to ask can we reappove the cybrog manage mode specless bluepint for this cycle | |
| 16:33:34 | sean-k-mooney | it missed last cycel because of the cyborg side not nova so im hopign stephen and Melanie will be fine with revieing it this cycle | |
| 16:34:20 | sean-k-mooney | Leo[m]: if the entire tech stack supprot that i think that woudl be infinetly better then the situation we have today | |
| 16:34:57 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney ok but will it need changes on the nova side ? | |
| 16:35:09 | tkajinam | Leo[m], maybe the right path is to propose that topic to the upcoming ptg and discuss details there, while that would attract attentions from cores. | |
| 16:35:18 | sean-k-mooney | yes but i have written those its a very small patch | |
| 16:35:26 | Uggla | tkajinam ++ | |
| 16:35:30 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: like -20+300 lines | |
| 16:35:39 | tkajinam | maybe it's a good timing to create an etherpad to gather topics ? | |
| 16:35:53 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: if it didnt need nova change it woudl not have a nova blueprint :) | |
| 16:35:54 | Uggla | tkajinam done | |
| 16:36:01 | tkajinam | Uggla++ | |
| 16:36:37 | sean-k-mooney | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/994579 | |
| 16:36:44 | sean-k-mooney | that is the entirity of the patch | |
| 16:36:54 | Leo[m] | What would it take to propose the change at the upcoming PTG? | |
| 16:37:12 | sean-k-mooney | Leo[m]: you just need to add it to the adgenda | |
| 16:37:19 | sean-k-mooney | and Uggla will help you find a spot | |
| 16:37:27 | sean-k-mooney | *time | |
| 16:38:09 | Leo[m] | Ok. I don't want to take up too much time for such a small change | |
| 16:38:33 | sean-k-mooney | its an imporant operational pain point | |
| 16:38:46 | sean-k-mooney | so i think its size is not the thing to focus on :) | |
| 16:39:11 | sean-k-mooney | Leo[m]: i have not looked at the spec yet | |
| 16:39:22 | sean-k-mooney | but the main aspect i would ask is how do we upgrade to this | |
| 16:39:30 | sean-k-mooney | per host config options are not a good path | |
| 16:39:36 | sean-k-mooney | at least not long term | |
| 16:39:42 | sean-k-mooney | as they cause issues with live migration | |
| 16:39:54 | sean-k-mooney | but ya we can work out those details later | |
| 16:39:57 | Uggla | Leo[m] usually we discuss topic at PTG and then the changes are reviewed. | |
| 16:40:33 | Leo[m] | What do you mean by "per host config options"? | |
| 16:40:48 | Leo[m] | Sounds good. Does that mean I should prepare the PR now? | |
| 16:41:21 | sean-k-mooney | ideally we woudl not bave a boolen config flage to opt into using the hostname | |
| 16:41:26 | sean-k-mooney | ```As currently proposed, one config option will be added | |
| 16:41:28 | sean-k-mooney | (a boolean in ``[libvirt]``, default ``False``) that allows operators | |
| 16:41:30 | sean-k-mooney | to opt in to using hostnames for the mon addresses``` | |
| 16:41:51 | Uggla | only spec is required, but if you have a "draft" patch that something helpful. | |
| 16:42:54 | sean-k-mooney | nova get the ceph mon info from the ceph.conf | |
| 16:43:23 | Leo[m] | Ok, great. Thank you for your help. Is there a link to information about the PTG and its agenda? | |
| 16:43:25 | sean-k-mooney | so ideally the mon adresses there woudl jsut eb updated to the fqdn and nova would "just work" | |
| 16:44:04 | sean-k-mooney | note that nova access ceph in 2 ways | |
| 16:44:05 | Uggla | Leo[m] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/nova-2027.1-ptg | |
| 16:44:22 | sean-k-mooney | we use the ceph cli and the pythyon bi9nding so we need a coherent story for both | |
| 16:44:41 | tkajinam | put your topic at the bottom | |
| 16:46:07 | sean-k-mooney | so in the interest of time, are we ok with updateign https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/support-vfio-variant-driver-managed-mode-via-cyborg to 2027.1 and seting it back to approved? | |
| 16:46:46 | sean-k-mooney | Uggla: you marked it as implemnted on last week but i reset it because its still in progress hence its current state | |
| 16:46:57 | Uggla | sean-k-mooney ok | |
| 16:47:11 | gibi_ | sean-k-mooney: any findings from the original plans during the implementation? | |
| 16:47:21 | Uggla | so I might have write something wrong in HL/prelude. | |
| 16:47:42 | sean-k-mooney | gibi_: just that the cybrog side needed me to implment ovo indirection api.. | |
| 16:48:06 | gibi_ | sean-k-mooney: ack that probably not affecting nova :) | |
| 16:48:06 | sean-k-mooney | gibi_: i realised late that we didnt have that in cybrog so i paused the work to focus on other features | |
| 16:48:33 | sean-k-mooney | so my plan is to complete the cybrog work includign ci then update the nova patch once im happy with all of that | |
| 16:49:14 | sean-k-mooney | im not expecting any scope change on the nova side for this specificly | |
| 16:49:37 | sean-k-mooney | i hae some ptg topic like using the sdk to talk to cybrog proerply | |
| 16:49:43 | sean-k-mooney | but that independint of this feature | |
| 16:49:45 | gibi_ | sean-k-mooney: sounds good to me | |
| 16:50:06 | gibi_ | Uggla: if this is in the prelude and highlight the we need to get remove it :) | |
| 16:50:37 | sean-k-mooney | i dont htink this is is there | |
| 16:50:48 | sean-k-mooney | i think we called out the mdev support | |
| 16:50:51 | sean-k-mooney | that did merge | |
| 16:50:58 | sean-k-mooney | so the nvidia drvier in thery shoudl now work | |
| 16:51:26 | Uggla | yep but I extended with variant because I thought it was merged. | |
| 16:51:56 | sean-k-mooney | oh ok | |
| 16:52:01 | sean-k-mooney | almost but not quite | |
| 16:53:01 | sean-k-mooney | ah i see https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/nova/2026.2.html | |
| 16:53:10 | sean-k-mooney | ya i can push a fix for that if you want | |
| 16:53:48 | sean-k-mooney | well this is the current text | |
| 16:54:01 | sean-k-mooney | ```Nova’s libvirt driver now supports Cyborg-managed mediated devices (such as vGPUs) via a new MDEV accelerator request binding type. Operators can choose to manage vGPU/mdev lifecycle through Cyborg as an alternative to Nova’s native support. Both management paths coexist safely thanks to a new OWNER_NOVA trait that prevents scheduling collisions between Nova-managed and | |
| 16:54:03 | sean-k-mooney | Cyborg-managed devices.``` | |
| 16:54:16 | sean-k-mooney | that does not mention manage mode | |
| 16:54:19 | sean-k-mooney | so i think we are good | |
| 16:55:09 | Uggla | yep | |
| 16:55:37 | gibi_ | cool then | |