[Neutron][FFE][requirements] request for QoS policy update for bound ports feature

Lajos Katona katonalala at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 13:29:37 UTC 2020


Thank you Slawek

Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. szept. 17.,
Cs, 10:22):

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 08:49:30AM +0200, Lajos Katona wrote:
> > Hi,
> > The neutron-lib patch is necessary for the use case when the new QoS
> > min_kbps value for the port is 0.
> > So would be good to have that on Victoria as well.
>
> Ok, so I personally think that it would be still good to merge it now,
> backport
> neutron-lib fix and make bugfix release of neutron-lib for Victoria.
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Lajos
> >
> > Slawek Kaplonski <skaplons at redhat.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. szept.
> 16.,
> > Sze, 22:21):
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > For me personally it seems ok to merge approve this FFE as this change
> > > isn't
> > > very big and is limited only to the QoS service plugin. So IMHO risk of
> > > merging
> > > that isn't very big.
> > > There is also scenario test proposed for that feature in [1] so we can
> > > ensure
> > > that it is working fine.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Lajos Katona wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > The neutron-lib patch (https://review.opendev.org/750349 ) is a bug
> fix
> > > > (see [1]) which as do not touch db or API can be backported later in
> the
> > > > worst case.
> > >
> > > Is ther neutron-lib patch necessary to make all of that working so that
> > > without
> > > backporting this fix and releasing new version feature in neutron will
> not
> > > work
> > > at all?
> > >
> > > > The fix itself doesn't affect other Neutron features, so no harm.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Lajos Katona (lajoskatona)
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1894825
> > > >
> > > > Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020.
> szept.
> > > 15.,
> > > > K, 18:05):
> > > >
> > > > > > I would like to ask for FFE for the RFE "allow replacing the QoS
> > > > > > policy of bound port", [1].
> > > > > > This feature adds the extra step to port update operation to
> change
> > > > > > the allocation in Placement to the min_kbps values of the new QoS
> > > > > > policy, if the port has a QoS policy with minimum_bandwidth rule
> and
> > > > > > is bound and used by a server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In neutron there's one open patch:
> > > > > > https://review.opendev.org/747774
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's an open bug report for the neutron-lib side:
> > > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1894825 (placement
> story:
> > > > > > https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2008111 )  and a fix
> for
> > > that:
> > > > > > https://review.opendev.org/750349
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1882804
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since this requires an update to neutron-lib, adding
> [requirements] to
> > > > > the subject. Non-client library freeze was two weeks ago now, so
> it's a
> > > > > bit late.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fix looks fairly minor, but I don't know that code. Can you
> comment
> > > > > on the potential risks of this change? We should be stabilizing as
> much
> > > > > as possible at this point as we approach the final victoria release
> > > date.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/743695
> > >
> > > --
> > > Slawek Kaplonski
> > > Senior software engineer
> > > Red Hat
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Slawek Kaplonski
> Senior software engineer
> Red Hat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200917/02697be2/attachment.html>


More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list