14:03:13 <jbernard> #startmeeting cinder
14:03:13 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Aug 27 14:03:13 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jbernard. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:03:13 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:03:13 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'cinder'
14:03:23 <jbernard> courtesy ping: jungleboyj rosmaita smcginnis tosky whoami-rajat m5z e0ne geguileo eharney jbernard hemna fabiooliveira yuval tobias-urdin adiare happystacker dosaboy hillpd msaravan sp-bmilanov Luzi sfernand simondodsley  zaubea
14:03:38 <jbernard> o/
14:03:44 <hvlcchao1> o/
14:03:44 <simondodsley> o/
14:03:46 <jbernard> #topic roll call
14:03:51 <jbernard> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-flamingo-meetings
14:03:51 <wizardbit> Hello
14:03:56 <nileshthathagar> hi
14:04:08 <jungleboyj> Kind of here.
14:04:10 <sfv880> Hello!
14:04:13 <jayaanand> hi
14:05:05 <wizardbit> I wanted to bring up this fix that some of my colleagues brought a few weeks ago https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/955379
14:05:18 <erlon> \o
14:05:21 <hillpd> hello
14:05:28 <flelain> \o
14:05:30 <wizardbit> o/
14:05:53 <rosmaita> o/
14:06:54 <jbernard> welcome everyone
14:07:01 <jbernard> #topic annoucements
14:07:14 <sfv880> Hello, I would like to ask to review 950574: Infinidat: add support for volume and group replication | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/950574 - thank you very much!
14:07:49 <jbernard> the last weeks we finished the reviews and releases of os-brick and cinder-client
14:08:19 <jbernard> i think those are in good shape for flamingo, rosmaita may have more to say
14:08:39 <simondodsley> sfv880: add review requests to https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/cinder-flamingo-reviews
14:09:30 <jbernard> this week is focused on feature reviews, the freeze is coming at the end of the week
14:09:50 <jbernard> there can be freeze exceptions, but I'm trying to get as much done before that I can
14:11:38 <flelain> On my end, I had this bug fix to get reviewed too: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/937526
14:12:22 <jbernard> bugs are likely to be pushed this week i suspect, they can still merge after the freeze without exception
14:12:39 <Luzi> o/
14:12:40 <simondodsley> flelain: add it to the list mentioned above
14:12:46 <jbernard> #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html
14:13:37 <flelain> jbernard: thanks, yes makes sense. I'm adding it up to flamingo reviews list as suggested by simondodsley.
14:13:46 <jbernard> Luzi: i brought up the encryption standardization at a meeting this morning, im not sure about this week but i know folks are aware of it
14:14:22 <Luzi> thank you, glance is also a factor here :/ cross-project features are hard
14:14:25 <jbernard> erlon: nice to see you back, it's been a while :)
14:14:32 <erlon> :)
14:14:36 <erlon> thanks
14:14:48 <jbernard> Luzi: yes, do you know where glace is at on their side?
14:14:51 <erlon> good to see great part of the crew here
14:14:57 <jungleboyj> ++
14:15:41 <Luzi> the main patch has 2 +1 from abhishek and rosmaita - i don't know whether there are still open questions
14:16:11 <simondodsley> jbernard: if you are focussing on features, then I suggest that any item in the reviews etherpad that are features and not fixes, are flagged as such for visiability
14:16:27 <jbernard> at least from cinder, it just needs another review, i raised it earlier so hopefully we'll see some movement soon
14:16:33 <flelain> jbernard/luzi: thank you for your work and update on encryption. Lots of interest on my side about it :)
14:16:55 <jbernard> simondodsley: +1
14:19:27 <jbernard> that is all i have for annoucments at the moment
14:19:39 <jbernard> basically, reviews at this poing
14:19:43 <jbernard> point
14:20:00 <jbernard> ive been working on eventlet removal, but it's not ready
14:20:09 <jbernard> yet
14:20:16 <jbernard> #topic open discussion
14:20:32 <simondodsley> one thing i would like to bring up is recovery from ANY snapshot
14:21:11 <simondodsley> I have a patch for this https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/948343 but need some help as it is failing in all sorts of areas related to RBAC I don't understand
14:22:19 <simondodsley> I will be following the abishop request to add a new item to the support matrix
14:23:19 <simondodsley> but i need to understand his comment about moving the API down to the volume layer as well
14:23:21 <jbernard> simondodsley: ok, that would be a very nice feature to have
14:23:42 <jbernard> abishop: ^ maybe yall can sort this out
14:24:20 <nileshthathagar> Hi All
14:24:25 <simondodsley> the RBAC stuff that is failing is all abishop crated...
14:24:27 <abishop> o/
14:24:39 <nileshthathagar> I received a +2 on 924902: Dell PowerMax Driver: Added Support for NVMe/TCP | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/924902. Many thanks to rosmaita for the review.
14:24:53 <nileshthathagar> It would be greatly appreciated if someone from the core team could take a look as well. Another +2 would help us get this merged before the feature freeze.
14:25:02 <wizardbit> @rosmaita I see there's a request to add previous patches a requester has reviewed. Does it have to be related to cinder or any OpenStack service?
14:25:26 <simondodsley> nileshthathagar: feature are being looked at this week
14:25:29 <abishop> simondodsley: I can help sort out the code once the feature itself is properly defined
14:25:45 <flelain> I'd have a proposal slightly different from this patch (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/726467), a patch that is already in production for us - it's just a specific exception that is raised whenever retyping is attempted to/from an encrypted volume on a network backend (Ceph/RBD for instance)
14:25:48 <simondodsley> what is not defined about revert from ANY snapshot?
14:25:49 <nileshthathagar> <simondodsley>: yes this the feature
14:26:23 <flelain> What's the best way to move forward? Submitting a new patch to be reviewed? Amending this one?
14:27:09 <jbernard> flelain: if it can be amended, yes and response to seans comment, and removal of -W
14:27:21 <jbernard> flelain: basically there's a lot of red on that one :)
14:27:28 <jbernard> flelain: red scares people
14:28:14 <hvlcchao1> In "Zuul Summary", "devstack-plugin-nfs-tempest-full" failed. All error message is "failed to reach available status (current creating) within the required time (196 s)". Is it environment issue ?
14:28:18 <jbernard> wizardbit: nope
14:28:28 <simondodsley> abishop: can you expalin more about your movement of the API to the volume layer?
14:28:33 <jbernard> wizardbit: it just helps to know there's effort in creating balance
14:29:32 <flelain> jbernard: yes, students and people of opensource communities lol :)
14:29:37 <jbernard> hvlcchao1: really hard to say, you can one (or both) of two things: look at console logs (stdout) and try to gain a better understanding
14:29:44 <abishop> simondodsley: it's just an implementation detail that would ensure there aren't multiple RPC between c-api and c-vol
14:29:53 <jbernard> hvlcchao1: or run tempest locally and try to reproduce
14:30:13 <simondodsley> abishop: well that sort of change is well beyond my coding ability
14:30:23 <hvlcchao1> In "Zuul Summary", "cinder-storpool-tempest-iscsi-multipath" failed. Is it environment issue?
14:30:24 <abishop> right, and that's where I can help
14:30:37 <jbernard> hvlcchao1: see my previous comments
14:31:00 <jbernard> nileshthathagar: ack
14:31:18 <flelain> jbernard: no particular interest for me in amending this one then (https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/os-brick/+/726467). I can create a new patch that would just substitute to this one if reviewed and merged.
14:31:26 <nileshthathagar> jbernard: thanks!
14:31:47 <jbernard> flelain: that's fine too, please abandon the old one if you do, so we dont get confused
14:31:53 <abishop> eharney: I recall you felt we needed further thought on reverting to any snap based on your historical knowledge from when the initial revert was implemented
14:32:39 <jbernard> flelain: if sean's question is still valid, it might be worth addressing it in your new version
14:32:46 <flelain> jbernard: agreed. thank you!
14:34:48 <nileshthathagar> jbernard: It’d be great if you could set the review priority.
14:36:05 <anthonygamboa> Question: in "Zuul Summary", there are some failed cases but they are "non-voting". So fixing them is NOT priority? Or do they need to be fixed?
14:36:25 <abishop> correct
14:36:36 <simondodsley> jbernard: setting the review priority for any features listed in the review etherpad might also be a good idea
14:36:44 <abishop> fixing not required
14:37:10 <anthonygamboa> abishop: great, thank you
14:38:44 <hvlcchao1> question: how to setup "tempest" local test env ?
14:41:37 <jbernard> hvlcchao1: i would start here https://docs.openstack.org/tempest/latest/
14:46:14 <anthonygamboa> In Zuul Summary, is "iscsi-driver-nimble" considered "non-voting" or "voting"?
14:46:57 <jbernard> anthonygamboa: that's a 3rd party ci
14:47:18 <jbernard> anthonygamboa: we look at those results if the patch in question effects that driver
14:47:43 <jbernard> anthonygamboa: but technically speaking, it is non-voting as it related to zuul's response
14:49:29 <anthonygamboa> jbernard: I see, thank you!
14:55:35 <jbernard> ok, last call
14:55:58 <jbernard> thank you everyone
14:56:01 <jbernard> #endmeeting