Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make kubelet topology-manager-policy configurable #8833

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 5, 2020

Conversation

olemarkus
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Apr 2, 2020
@olemarkus olemarkus force-pushed the numa branch 2 times, most recently from 199b7f3 to b5cde0a Compare April 3, 2020 06:34
@hakman
Copy link
Member

hakman commented Apr 3, 2020

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 3, 2020
@johngmyers
Copy link
Member

Would have been easier to review if the refactor and the addition were in separate commits.

@kubernetes kubernetes deleted a comment from olemarkus Apr 4, 2020
}
}

if c.IsKubernetesGTE("1.10") {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will panic if the version in the cluster spec is unparseable. Not something that should happen in the validation code. It should keep the old logic of checking kubernetesRelease.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch. I think that getting this far with an unparseable kubernetes version is undefined behaviour though. While I like outputting all errors (or as many as possible) in one go, I think an unparseable kubernetes version should just return the error immediately.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wouldn't agree it counts as "undefined behavior". It is, admittedly, a hard thing to unit test for. I could see us deciding that an unparseable Kubernetes version is one error we don't try to combine with others.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Given how much validation logic depends on a parseable Kubernetes version, I would be in favor of returning a single error early if it isn't parseable.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I read the code correctly, the old code just continued on with 1.15 as the kubernetes version. Changed this to returning early now.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I suppose another approach would be to DeepCopy the Cluster and put 1.15 in the copy's KubernetesVersion.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot removed the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 5, 2020
pkg/apis/kops/validation/legacy.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/apis/kops/componentconfig.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/apis/kops/v1alpha2/componentconfig.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-Authored-By: John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@proofpoint.com>
@johngmyers
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 5, 2020
@rifelpet
Copy link
Member

rifelpet commented Apr 5, 2020

/approve

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: olemarkus, rifelpet

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 5, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot merged commit f1cb72e into kubernetes:master Apr 5, 2020
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added this to the v1.18 milestone Apr 5, 2020
@olemarkus olemarkus deleted the numa branch April 6, 2020 05:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. area/api cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants