Skip to content

Expose device-plugins directory in origin container#20351

Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
karmab:deviceplugin_mount
Aug 17, 2018
Merged

Expose device-plugins directory in origin container#20351
openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit intoopenshift:masterfrom
karmab:deviceplugin_mount

Conversation

@karmab
Copy link
Contributor

@karmab karmab commented Jul 18, 2018

No description provided.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 18, 2018
@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Jul 19, 2018

The goal of cluster up is to have a simple constrained way to support a limited developer use-case for running workloads. Platform development (apiserver, kubelet, controllers, kubelet, etc) are not goals for cluster up. As long as most (not all) of them are possible after the fact even if they aren't easy, it's ok.

I don't really have an opinion about this because I don't know what it does. It appears to be constrained and it's not making a branching path, so I'll leave it up to @sjenning

/assign @sjenning

@karmab
Copy link
Contributor Author

karmab commented Jul 23, 2018

@deads2k missing this mount prevents using kubevirt on top of oc cluster up, which used to be a nice way to test it, and this seems like quite an easy fix

@karmab
Copy link
Contributor Author

karmab commented Jul 23, 2018

/retest

@rmohr
Copy link

rmohr commented Jul 24, 2018

@sjenning can @karmab or I somehow assist with the PR? It would help us providing a limited KubeVirt demo.

The goal of cluster up is to have a simple constrained way to support a limited developer use-case for running workloads. Platform development (apiserver, kubelet, controllers, kubelet, etc) are not goals for cluster up. As long as most (not all) of them are possible after the fact even if they aren't easy, it's ok.

@deads2k we use it for doing small demos. For developing and testing we have extra cluster: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirtci. Just to add explicitly that we do not intend to do more with this or minishift.

@sjenning
Copy link
Contributor

/assign @vikaschoudhary16
/unassign

@vikaschoudhary16
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 1, 2018
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

@fabiand
Copy link

fabiand commented Aug 10, 2018

This affects all applications providing device plugins, which I consider to to be a regular use-case (aka for users).

What is needed to get this merged?

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Aug 10, 2018

This affects all applications providing device plugins, which I consider to to be a regular use-case (aka for users).

What is needed to get this merged?

It just fell off the radar.

/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: deads2k, karmab, vikaschoudhary16

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

The pull request process is described here

Details 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

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 10, 2018
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 4581379 into openshift:master Aug 17, 2018
@karmab karmab deleted the deviceplugin_mount branch August 27, 2018 15:16
@fabiand
Copy link

fabiand commented Sep 5, 2018

@deads2k darn, this missed 3.10.

When will 3.11 be around, or can we rquest backport to 3.10?

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Sep 5, 2018

@deads2k darn, this missed 3.10.

When will 3.11 be around, or can we rquest backport to 3.10?

I'm ok with backporting this if it goes cleanly. Final call will be up to @sjenning though.

/cherrypick 3.10

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@deads2k: cannot checkout 3.10: error checking out 3.10: exit status 1. output: error: pathspec '3.10' did not match any file(s) known to git.

Details

In response to this:

@deads2k darn, this missed 3.10.

When will 3.11 be around, or can we rquest backport to 3.10?

I'm ok with backporting this if it goes cleanly. Final call will be up to @sjenning though.

/cherrypick 3.10

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@deads2k
Copy link
Contributor

deads2k commented Sep 7, 2018

/cherrypick release-3.10

@openshift-cherrypick-robot

@deads2k: new pull request created: #20895

Details

In response to this:

/cherrypick release-3.10

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

xsgordon added a commit to xsgordon/kubevirt-minishift-demo that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2018
OKD 3.11 includes the fix for openshift/origin#20351 so
the relevant workaround is no longer required (and in fact appears to actually
break the fix).
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. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants