I've pushed the patch into the merge queue now. Any nits people find at this point we'll address post merge.
Awesome work QoS team! On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > So the patch in question sit there for some time, and honestly, I > haven't seen much interest from reviewers to take a look at it, apart > from Assaf who played with the code and reported a bunch of minor issues > . > > I think Kyle's plan was to wait until Fri and then merge. > > We had a git conflict on Fri though, so today I respin the patch > again, hoping that it will either get more reviews or it's merged > before we hit another conflict that can be inflicted by any new db > migration. > > Ihar > > On 08/12/2015 09:55 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > with great pleasure, I want to request a coordinated review for > > merging feature/qos branch back to master: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/212170/ > > > > Since it's a merge patch, gerrit fails to show the whole diff that > > it introduces into master. To get over it, fetch the patch: > > > > $ git review -d 212170 > > > > and then check the difference: > > > > $ git fetch origin && git diff origin/master... > > > > I think we should stick to review process originally suggested at > > [1]. Specifically, since it's not reasonable to expect the whole > > feature branch to be reviewed by a single person, I hope multiple > > people will assign themselves to the job and split the pieces to > > review based on devref document that describes the feature [2] > > (Note that a new RPC push/pull mechanism is described in a separate > > devref section [3]). > > > > Note that we don't expect to tackle all review comments, however > > tiny, in feature/qos. We are happy to handle major flaws there, but > > for minor stuff, it's good to proceed in master. Nevertheless we > > are happy to get minors too and collect them for post-merge. > > > > Things we have in the tree: > > > > - server: QoS API extension; QoS core resource extension; QoS ML2 > > extension driver; QoS versioned objects + base for new objects; > > QoS supported rule types mechanism for ML2; QoS notification > > drivers mechanism to update SDN controllers; > > > > - RPC: new push/pull mechanisms for versioned objects to propagate > > QoS objects into the agents; > > > > - agent side: new L2 agent extensions mechanism, integrated into > > OVS and SR-IOV agents; QoS l2 agent extension; OVS and SR-IOV QoS > > drivers; ovs_lib and pci_lib changes. > > > > I suggest to split review into following logical pieces: > > > > - API controller + service plugin + API tests; - Versioned objects: > > neutron.objects.* - ML2: supported_qos_rule_types mechanism, > > extension driver, update for get_device_details payload; - RPC > > mechanism (push/pull), resource manager, registries + notification > > drivers integration; - l2 extensions (manager, base interface) + > > qos extension; - OVS integration with extension manager + OVS QoS > > driver + ovs_lib changes; - SR-IOV agent integration with extension > > manager + SR-IOV QoS driver + pci_lib changes; - functional tests. > > > > We will also need to update the spec: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199112/ > > > > Included test coverage: > > > > - unit tests; - API tests; - functional tests (more scenarios to > > come in master); - fullstack tests [4] (not in the tree since we > > need to merge client and base fullstack patches first). > > > > We have client patches up for review [5][6] and expect them to go > > in after merge of server component. > > > > We hope that we'll make fullstack in before closing the blueprint > > in this cycle. > > > > [1]: > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/069188.ht > ml > > > > > [2]: > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/neutron/tree/doc/source/devref > /q > > > > > uality_of_service.rst?h=feature/qos > > [3]: > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/neutron/tree/doc/source/devref > /r > > > > > pc_callbacks.rst?h=feature/qos > > [4]: https://review.openstack.org/202492 [5]: > > https://review.openstack.org/189655 [6]: > > https://review.openstack.org/198277 [7]: > > https://review.openstack.org/202061 > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____ > > > > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV0fYnAAoJEC5aWaUY1u57rtsH/iaQ5HCRuFDbhFsFAkGeW/hB > gn/pR9lmx/hXUIkEWfGPIsgtEnuA8nIQ3knwLfvkrPxR60YHkCK5YeRDaTVd0IQb > oV5njw3eMJablTtquPybSzUljfx+oCQ2pxwhXgWAcj5KucksXLcvC+lkfk5uQ1OT > iFum1jCmZ+7Te8uPdjkgGxxxpLjnJJs0Na6i+GhRppRc/HK77jM31MggfA3dJw9y > cdB0JN3w2tT4wbjtmtCsVgKVWeDuuKXlnZjmI0Do1Qm1YDC0NNPLNGcBTV70vyPB > B8lGyk9kvtbzSQ701T3LEp8hRIL6Oto8cHRrt3jkfygrlXPQL8x1pwtjSD59bXU= > =s4FB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
