[nova][requirements] fasteners===0.16.3 held back by nova
balazs.gibizer at est.tech
Mon Jan 10 12:27:36 UTC 2022
On Thu, Jan 6 2022 at 09:53:06 AM -0800, melanie witt
<melwittt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu Jan 06 2022 08:41:13 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time), Matthew
> Thode <mthode at mthode.org> wrote:
>> Re: [nova][requirements] fasteners===0.16.3 held back by nova
>> Matthew Thode <mthode at mthode.org>
>> 1/6/22, 08:41
>> Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com>
>> openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org
>> That seems right, I seem to remember eventlet in there.
>> -- Matthew Thode On 22-01-06 10:17:56, Ben Nemec wrote:
>>> Is it still this:https://github.com/harlowja/fasteners/issues/36 ?
>>> I did some investigation about a year ago with one of the fasteners
>>> maintainers, but we never really came up with a definite answer as
>>> to what
>>> is going on. :-/
>>> On 1/5/22 20:33, Matthew Thode wrote:
>>>> This one is simple, and iirc is blocked on upstream fixing
>>>> (but cannot find the reference).
>>>> both test this change.
> I worked on the fasteners thing for Too Long of a Time last October
> and found what is happening. It is indeed the same issue from 2019
>  and I explain the problem (it's long) in a new eventlet issue I
> opened .
> I proposed a patch to "fix" the problem in nova , it was initially
> nacked because it has to do with eventlet, but it's the simplest,
> smallest change IMHO that will address the issue.
It was me who originally nacked PS1. I still think that PS1 is a hack,
but after the many weeks of investigation Melanie did and the
discussions in the github issues I have to accept that we have no
better option in our hands at the moment. So I'm +2 on .
> I also went on a wild goose chase trying to change all our spawn_n()
> calls with spawn() in PS2 and PS3 but it ended in a dead end. There
> are comments detailing that attempt in the review if anyone is
> So, based on that dead end and seeing this come up on the ML, I have
> reverted  to PS1 if anyone can review and give feedback on what
> approach they would prefer if they think the current approach is not
> Note: the reason we pull in fasteners is through oslo.concurrency,
> the lockutils use it.
>  https://github.com/harlowja/fasteners/issues/36
>  https://github.com/eventlet/eventlet/issues/731
>  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/813114
More information about the openstack-discuss