November 2018 - Starlingx-discuss

[Starlingx-discuss] build broken with mtce-guest failure in stx-nfv
by Lin, Shuicheng 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Hi, I synced latest code today, and meet build failure with mtce-guest in stx-nfv. Here is the error message in the build log: BUILDSTDERR: guestServer.cpp: In function 'int _config_handler(void*, const char*, const char*, const char*)': BUILDSTDERR: guestServer.cpp:140:21: error: 'struct daemon_config_type' has no member named 'hbs_pulse_period' BUILDSTDERR: config_ptr->hbs_pulse_period = atoi(value); BUILDSTDERR: ^ It seems it is relate with patch [0], which removed "hbs_pulse_period". I have created LP issue [1]. Could anybody familiar with it help fix it? Thanks. [0]: https://review.openstack.org/617835 [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1804579 Best Regards Shuicheng

3 2

Re: [Starlingx-discuss] stx-tools: document isn't aligned with code
by Hu, Yong 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Changcheng, I’ve recently refreshed my build environment. If you still see some problems, you can come to me. -Yong From: "Liu, Changcheng" <changcheng.liu(a)intel.com> Date: Thursday, 22 November 2018 at 7:05 AM To: "Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C" <mario.alfredo.c.arevalo(a)intel.com>, "Arce Moreno, Abraham" <abraham.arce.moreno(a)intel.com>, "starlingx-discuss(a)lists.starlingx.io" <starlingx-discuss(a)lists.starlingx.io> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] stx-tools: document isn't aligned with code I'll follow the README.rst to set up the environment again. -----Original Message----- From: Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 12:56 AM To: Arce Moreno, Abraham <abraham.arce.moreno(a)intel.com>; Liu, Changcheng <changcheng.liu(a)intel.com>; starlingx-discuss(a)lists.starlingx.io Subject: RE: stx-tools: document isn't aligned with code Hi Changcheng and Abraham, I have sent a new version in order to update the documentation according to the new changes in Dockerfile[s]. You can take a look in this link: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/601308/ sorry for any inconvenience. Best regards. Mario. ________________________________________ From: Arce Moreno, Abraham Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 7:35 AM To: Liu, Changcheng; starlingx-discuss(a)lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>; Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C Subject: RE: stx-tools: document isn't aligned with code Hi again Changcheng, > I’m following below document to create-starlingx-packages. It’s not > aligned with latest code. You are right... > https://docs.starlingx.io/developer_guide/index.html#create- > starlingx-packages > <https://docs.starlingx.io/developer_guide/index.html#create-starlingx > - > packages> > Could the man, who’s responsible for continuous-integration, clean the > document and make it more clear? Under this review we will include the changes to align with Mario's cleanup: [Developer Guide] Setup Building Docker Container [0] The logic behind to accommodate the new "Developer Guide" flow proposal would look like: FYI "..." means content is not intended to be changed. - Requirements - ... - Development Environment Setup - ... - Prepare the Base Docker Image - Configuration - Sample localrc - Build Base Docker Image - Build the CentOS Mirror Repository - Run Mirror Docker Container - Download Packages - Verify Packages - Packages Structure - Create CentOS Mirror Repository - Create StarlingX Packages - Run Building Docker Container - Download Source Code Repositories - Build Packages - Build StarlingX ISO - Build Installer - ... - Build Avoidance - ... In summary, "flow proposal" could look like: - Prepare Base Docker Image - Build "base image" - Build the CentOS Mirror Repository - Run container from "base image" - Get mirror files - Create StarlingX Packages - Run container from "base image" - Get StarlingX source code - Build StarlingX packages - Build StarlingX ISO > 1. The stx-tools code isn’t aligned with the above document since > base- build/build target has been removed. > 2. Besides this, README.rst is not updated in time when the > build rule has been changed. README.rst from stx-tools project is going under a review process [1] so please feel free to leave your comments. [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/619043/ [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/601308/

2 1

[Starlingx-discuss] [StarlingX] Force deletion in Cinder
by Li, Xiaoyan 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Sorry, updated the subject. _____________________________________________ From: Li, Xiaoyan Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:49 AM To: 'starlingx-discuss(a)lists.starlingx.io' <starlingx-discuss(a)lists.starlingx.io> Subject: Force deletion in Cinder Hi, This email is to discuss whether we can abandon 0009-Pike-Rebase-Enhanced-force-deletion.patch in StarlingX/Cinder. This patch resolves the problem that a volume is attached to a non-existed VM and can't be deleted. I talked with Openstack/Cinder community. As Cinder uses new attach/detach workflow, now this problem doesn't exist. Users can use "cinder attachment-list" to list all the attachments, and then delete them. After that, the volume can be deleted. Fang Liang also did such test, it works. So I think we can abandon this patch. Any objections? Best wishes Lisa

3 3

[Starlingx-discuss] question about create-var-run-resource-agents.patch in cluster-resource-agent
by Lin, Shuicheng 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Hi Scott/Penney, I am looking at story [0], which want to remove patches [1] for create directory /var/run/resource-agents. And I find another patch [2] disabled explicit requires the directory in spec file. (#%dir %attr (1755, root, root) %{_var}/run/resource-agents) Could you share me the history of patch [1] and [2]? I prefer to add back this line in patch [2], and patch [1] could be removed without puppet replacement. What's your suggestion? Thanks. [0]: https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2004019 [1]: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/stx-integ/tree/base/cluster-resour… [2]: https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/stx-integ/tree/base/cluster-resour… Best Regards Shuicheng

2 2

[Starlingx-discuss] Force deletion in Cinder
by Li, Xiaoyan 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Hi, This email is to discuss whether we can abandon 0009-Pike-Rebase-Enhanced-force-deletion.patch in StarlingX/Cinder. This patch resolves the problem that a volume is attached to a non-existed VM and can't be deleted. I talked with Openstack/Cinder community. As Cinder uses new attach/detach workflow, now this problem doesn't exist. Users can use "cinder attachment-list" to list all the attachments, and then delete them. After that, the volume can be deleted. Fang Liang also did such test, it works. So I think we can abandon this patch. Any objections? Best wishes Lisa

1 0

[Starlingx-discuss] stx-tools: document isn't aligned with code
by Liu, Changcheng 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

Hi all, I'm following below document to create-starlingx-packages. It's not aligned with latest code. https://docs.starlingx.io/developer_guide/index.html#create-starlingx-packa… Could the man, who's responsible for continuous-integration, clean the document and make it more clear? 1. The stx-tools code isn't aligned with the above document since base-build/build target has been removed. commit 402961394e6cb0678629eadba25822dc82448528 Author: Mario Alfredo Carrillo Arevalo <mario.alfredo.c.arevalo(a)intel.com> Date: Tue Oct 30 16:46:04 2018 -0600 Update Makefile Now the Makefile will be dedicated to build just one docker image, this commit updates the Makefile rules. 2. Besides this, README.rst is not updated in time when the build rule has been changed. B.R. Changcheng

3 3

[Starlingx-discuss] [build][meetings]Agenda for Build team meeting 11/22/2018
by Lara, Cesar 21 Nov '18

21 Nov '18

Build team meeting 11/22/2018 Agenda - Cengn follow up - Ken - Mirror script refactor - Marcela - Build team Imperatives for next release Most of us are in non-holiday areas, please let me know if there is a showstopper to host this meeting without people from USA Regards Cesar Lara Software Engineering Manager OpenSource Technology Center

1 0

[Starlingx-discuss] Migrate Starling X kernel patches to LTS kernel
by Victor Rodriguez 21 Nov '18

21 Nov '18

Hi team I am a new user/developer of starling X and after searching into the kernel metapatches at: https://git.starlingx.io/cgit/stx-integ/tree/kernel Some questions came to me : As far as I can see we are under kernel 3.10 from RHEL RT fork right? There are some ( actually many ) security and functional changes that exist in the LTS kernel ( like 4.19 as an example), because of that I would like to use a more stable kernel into my starling x system Is there any specific reason why use that specific for from RHEL? What does starling X think about the migration of these patches ( some of them are already applied into the latest versions of Linux Kernel)? What kind of test should I perform to check that my vanilla kernel + STX patches work as expected? All feedback is more than welcome BTW thanks to Mario and Saul for the help on understand more these patches Regards Victor Rodriguez

3 4

[Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX mini-PTG Jan 15-16 in Phoenix
by Jones, Bruce E 21 Nov '18

21 Nov '18

We are thinking about holding a StarlingX mini-PTG meeting in January in Phoenix, to be hosted on the Intel campus. I'd like to get an early headcount and make sure there are no conflicts for the dates. Please reply to this email and let me know if you can/want to attend, or if you would like to attend but have a conflict for these dates. Thank you! brucej

1 0

[Starlingx-discuss] Notes from 11/21/18 community meeting
by Jones, Bruce E 21 Nov '18

21 Nov '18

Agenda and Notes - Nov 21st Call * Happy Thanksgiving! The US based folks will be out Thursday - Friday this week. * Berlin Summit Summary - Bruce, etc... o Really good summit for StarlingX. Good showcase for the project, and great progress since May where we started with seed code. Big accomplishment by the team! o Brent presented to the BoD, Ian and Dean keynoted, there were numerous StarlingX sessions and we had good participation across the overall Open Infrastructure community. o Conference sessions were recorded and are in the process of being posted o The next Summit / PTG will be in Denver. The one after that will be in China! o The next OpenStack release will be called Train. * Patch resolution strategy change - Brent o Reduction of OpenStack technical debt has not been going as fast as we would like, which means maintaining the forks for longer and impacting rebasing. o The TSC discussed a new approach. Rather than work through patch by patch, the TSC proposes to turn the problem on its head and move to OpenStack master o As soon as possible. o We would then look to address gaps through upstream submissions/specs, refactoring of STX or (worst case) carrying a small number of patches in packaging RPMs. o Brent to post the chart deck describing the changes to keep onto the wiki. o List has been shared with the STX Neutron team and the Nova PTL. o Will likely change the release cadence to accommodate this change - Stein releases in April making it hard to support in an STX release in March. * We are looking into holding an in person community meeting in January to discuss planning for these changes. Hosted by Intel in Phoenix (Chandler). Target date is January 15-16

1 0