18:02:32 #startmeeting networking_policy 18:02:32 SumitNaiksatam: hi! 18:02:33 Meeting started Thu Mar 16 18:02:32 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:02:34 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:02:34 hi SumitNaiksatam tbachman annak rkukura 18:02:37 The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy' 18:02:52 #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#March_16th.2C_9th.2C_2nd_2017 18:03:00 igordcard: hi 18:03:18 hi SumitNaiksatam I have time today :) 18:03:20 #topic QoS patch 18:03:23 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/426436 18:03:29 igordcard: :-) thanks 18:03:41 igordcard: unfortunately we have not yet merged this patch 18:03:56 i noticed that ash responded on the review, but i did not get a chance to look closely myself 18:04:15 igordcard: do you think what he suggested is feasible or is the reason for the failures? 18:04:29 point 1) is fine, that had already been corrected but then I restored an earlier patchset 18:04:49 point 2) is what I'm investigating now, I haven't yet fully understood 18:05:07 this is what I'm struggling a bit with 18:05:12 "Chain gets deleted as part of update ptg operation between pre and post commit call, which deletes service targets(few pts in this ptg) created by plumber." 18:05:50 igordcard: right 18:06:04 #link http://logs.openstack.org/36/426436/4/check/gate-group-based-policy-dsvm-nfp-ubuntu-xenial-nv/c1b6dd3/logs/q-svc.txt.gz?level=ERROR#_2017-02-02_21_12_07_834 18:06:06 i am not sure how that is related to your patch, but what he says is correct 18:06:43 igordcard: okay, but why is that related to your changes? 18:07:06 oh this one: self._disassociate_qosp_from_pt 18:07:16 the PT doesnt exist 18:07:26 perhaps ignore in this case? 18:07:47 SumitNaiksatam: because it is a Service Target (I don't really know what they are) ? 18:07:50 SumitNaiksatam: that PT 18:08:18 igordcard: the service targets are special PTs created by the plumber for the network services 18:08:40 SumitNaiksatam: because for other PTs I expect all of them to stay there by the end of the operation 18:08:42 igordcard: so then you can actually skip a PT if its a service_target 18:09:09 igordcard: i believe the issue is that in this case the plumber is deleting the service_target? 18:09:25 before you make the self._disassociate_qosp_from_pt ? 18:10:19 SumitNaiksatam: I believe that is ash's point but I haven't look further 18:10:26 #link http://logs.openstack.org/36/426436/4/check/gate-group-based-policy-dsvm-nfp-ubuntu-xenial-nv/c1b6dd3/logs/q-svc.txt.gz?#_2017-02-02_21_12_07_834 18:10:31 with non-ERROR lines 18:11:09 igordcard: okay, i will confirm if you can always skip disassociating from the service_target 18:11:31 in general i am wondering why you are even getting a reference to that if the PT is already deleted 18:11:34 SumitNaiksatam: are service targets nfp-only? 18:11:42 igordcard: not NFP only 18:11:48 igordcard: but service chain only 18:11:56 SumitNaiksatam: the PT is expected to be there, as I got a list of PTs associated to the PTG beforehand 18:12:07 igordcard: hmmm 18:12:17 SumitNaiksatam: and the mapping to qos policies is from the PT 18:12:17 igordcard: okay let me look at this further 18:12:27 igordcard: okay 18:12:38 i will investigate further 18:12:53 SumitNaiksatam: NSP is associated to PTG, but the mapping is actually done between the PTG's PTs and the qos policies 18:13:09 igordcard: right, got it 18:13:32 igordcard: okay, lets cirle back on this offline, i will dig into it 18:14:03 i was really hoping to have gotten this merged by now, because we are getting close to merging the newton patches 18:14:23 SumitNaiksatam: but the mapping PT-QoS isn't persisted... it is created on the PT's neutron port 18:14:28 igordcard: i know you are leading a few other initiatives as well, so many thanks for spending the time on this! 18:14:38 igordcard: okay 18:15:22 SumitNaiksatam: I'll try to dedicate some time still today and test a few things now that I know about the service targets 18:15:30 igordcard: okay that will be great 18:15:44 I was on vacation for most of this week and tomorrow is bank holiday here 18:16:01 igordcard: oh okay, no worries, hope you had a good vacation :-) 18:16:30 SumitNaiksatam: not a leisure vacation :( but wasn't bad 18:16:31 * tbachman has to run 18:16:48 igordcard: :-) 18:16:55 okay moving on 18:16:58 #topic Newton Sync 18:17:12 so, there are several patches here 18:17:24 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:newton-sync 18:17:31 rkukura: thanks for the last round of reviews 18:17:52 as i mentioned offline, there is one test which fails occassionally, but i think we can ignore that for now 18:17:53 no problem - your commit message was really helpful! 18:18:10 rkukura: okay, i didnt imagine that anyone would actually ready it :-P 18:18:15 *read 18:19:07 I should have pointed out a couple nits in it as evidence ;) 18:19:24 :-) 18:20:08 typos in the commit message :-) 18:20:27 So I only had a couple nits and questions on the main sync patch - nothing major 18:20:48 rkukura: yeah, i havent read through those but i will after this meeting and respond 18:21:11 ok 18:21:28 rkukura: i didnt delete some of the revisit comments because i did not spend time investigating those 18:21:53 those were related to notifications, so I don’t think they apply anymore 18:22:03 okay 18:22:38 I’m not sure any updates will be needed, so we need to get another reviewer looking at it ASAP 18:22:45 rkukura: okay 18:22:51 i just read all your comments 18:23:06 could do any update, but nothing seems critically wrong 18:23:26 other than that i think the cli, ui, heat patches should be good as is 18:24:04 I will [re]-review those - any reason we need to more the main patch before those? 18:24:16 oh wait, seems annak’s CLI patch went into merge conflict since we merged kent’s patch, darn! 18:24:48 rkukura: well, as long as we are going to merge the main patch soon enough, it shoud be okay 18:25:22 if we merge those before the main patch, then i can update the main patch to remove the pointer to the gerrit reviews and restore the original main branch references 18:25:32 right 18:25:56 so yeah, i am fine either way, less work if we merge those first 18:26:23 annak: if you can take a quick look at the merge conflict on the CLI patch it will be good, else i can take a look at it a little later 18:26:43 on -> in 18:27:13 #topic Service Chaining and NFP patches 18:27:17 songole is not here 18:27:22 and there are a ton of patches here 18:27:31 unfortunately i havent found the time to review 18:27:35 will do so shortly 18:27:42 #topic Open Discussion 18:27:58 rkukura: igordcard annak: anything else for today? 18:28:10 nothing from me 18:28:45 okay, thanks all for attending, back to the newton-sync :-) 18:28:46 bye 18:28:56 #endmeeting