)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6a9bbd827ea624cb32e67d0174de5d6fca6a04b3","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":22,"context_line":"os boot device mechanism for backward compatibility."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[1] https://github.com/coreboot/seabios/commit/2f4d068645c211e309812372cd0ac58c9024e93b"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id\u003d1924972"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"Closes-Bug: #2127229"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"Change-Id: I73c7cc7930d10aadf4ccc6c1a4f2fda50cace08c"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":11,"id":"9d4bbf2c_ea0cddbe","line":25,"updated":"2026-01-13 14:59:57.000000000","message":"we have a soft rule that we shoudl not specify bugzilla or jira link in commit messages\n\nin geneal those should be place in the launchpad bug.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":5112,"name":"Seyeong Kim","email":"seyeong.kim@canonical.com","username":"xtrusia"},"change_message_id":"eb8672fe9454391ef290054a7c10047d2902e606","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":22,"context_line":"os boot device mechanism for backward compatibility."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[1] https://github.com/coreboot/seabios/commit/2f4d068645c211e309812372cd0ac58c9024e93b"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id\u003d1924972"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"Closes-Bug: #2127229"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"Change-Id: I73c7cc7930d10aadf4ccc6c1a4f2fda50cace08c"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":11,"id":"f8ae04bd_f36ff7ab","line":25,"in_reply_to":"9d4bbf2c_ea0cddbe","updated":"2026-03-10 10:55:34.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6a9bbd827ea624cb32e67d0174de5d6fca6a04b3","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[1] https://github.com/coreboot/seabios/commit/2f4d068645c211e309812372cd0ac58c9024e93b"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id\u003d1924972"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"Closes-Bug: #2127229"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"Change-Id: I73c7cc7930d10aadf4ccc6c1a4f2fda50cace08c"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"Signed-off-by: Seyeong Kim \u003cseyeong.kim@canonical.com\u003e"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":11,"id":"93468b14_15cfe5e8","line":27,"updated":"2026-01-13 14:59:57.000000000","message":"i replied on the bug but this feels more like a feature request then a bug\neffecitlvy you are tryign to supprot boot form volume with multipel boot volumes which is not supproted today.\n\nboot from voluem is only supported for the root disk.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":5112,"name":"Seyeong Kim","email":"seyeong.kim@canonical.com","username":"xtrusia"},"change_message_id":"eb8672fe9454391ef290054a7c10047d2902e606","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":24,"context_line":"[1] https://github.com/coreboot/seabios/commit/2f4d068645c211e309812372cd0ac58c9024e93b"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id\u003d1924972"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":""},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"Closes-Bug: #2127229"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"Change-Id: I73c7cc7930d10aadf4ccc6c1a4f2fda50cace08c"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"Signed-off-by: Seyeong Kim \u003cseyeong.kim@canonical.com\u003e"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":11,"id":"e5e00243_5b474ee4","line":27,"in_reply_to":"93468b14_15cfe5e8","updated":"2026-03-10 10:55:34.000000000","message":"Acknowledged","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"}],"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":5112,"name":"Seyeong Kim","email":"seyeong.kim@canonical.com","username":"xtrusia"},"change_message_id":"0cf95beb2ba0a700f850da7c762d9dc0c57f46f6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":9,"id":"8f352a36_a2066dbc","updated":"2025-11-25 05:04:14.000000000","message":"recheck Timed out waiting for controller compute service to be enabled","commit_id":"87da16b4ae794272062386e8847f07281d1c5099"},{"author":{"_account_id":5112,"name":"Seyeong Kim","email":"seyeong.kim@canonical.com","username":"xtrusia"},"change_message_id":"f28fd071f77217bfee5944847f7af8b2acd1f23f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":11,"id":"00cf585a_092c47e4","updated":"2025-12-08 00:51:58.000000000","message":"Hello, I added you as a reviewer for this patch.\nIf you have some time, I would be grateful if you could review it,\nand any suggestions on improving the current approach would be much appreciated.\nRight now the logic checks the number of disks and sets the \u0027boot\u0027 option conditionally.\nThank you for your guidance and help.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6a9bbd827ea624cb32e67d0174de5d6fca6a04b3","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":11,"id":"a6ada407_6ad8329a","updated":"2026-01-13 14:59:57.000000000","message":"while the current api imples you cah have multipe boot disk we do not documetn or test that today. to me suprpotign that properly with multiple cinder boot volumes need more testing and docuematnion is is more of a feature then a bug.\n\nat a miminium this patch needs a release note, documeation and ideally we woudl have functional testcoverage.\n\ni dont think unit test are sufficent for this.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":5112,"name":"Seyeong Kim","email":"seyeong.kim@canonical.com","username":"xtrusia"},"change_message_id":"aa511143d7708ac6f446ea21b83ed5afe4ec9bd9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":12,"id":"81ecb30c_f380711b","updated":"2026-01-27 05:16:48.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"4eff4cbd5d6aa82c26b682749b4d9ff3d92b3397"}],"nova/virt/libvirt/volume/volume.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6a9bbd827ea624cb32e67d0174de5d6fca6a04b3","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":118,"context_line":"        # handling conf.boot_order is already implemented."},{"line_number":119,"context_line":"        # e.g openstack server create ..."},{"line_number":120,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d0"},{"line_number":121,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d1"},{"line_number":122,"context_line":"        if ("},{"line_number":123,"context_line":"            \u0027boot_index\u0027 in disk_info and"},{"line_number":124,"context_line":"            disk_info.get(\u0027use_device_boot_order\u0027, False)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":11,"id":"9e44f7f2_3a06ebe2","line":121,"updated":"2026-01-13 14:59:57.000000000","message":"so this is not currently supproted.\n\ni belive if you chaeck the created volume in cinder you would see the second volume is not marked as bootable.\n\nnova has multiple way to boot form a cidner volume\n\nthe first is \"Create a volume from an image and boot an instance from that volume\"\n```\nopenstack server create \\\n    --flavor $FLAVOR --network $NETWORK \\\n    --image 44d317a3-6183-4063-868b-aa0728576f5f --boot-from-volume 10 boot-from-nova-created-volume\n```\nor \n```\n openstack server create \\\n    --flavor $FLAVOR --network $NETWORK \\\n    --block-device source_type\u003dimage,uuid\u003d44d317a3-6183-4063-868b-aa0728576f5f,destination_type\u003dvolume,size\u003d10,boot_index\u003d0 boot-from-nova-created-volume\n```  \n    \n    \nthere is also a second variant of this flow which ius \n\"Create a volume from an volume snapshot and boot an instance from that volume\"\n\n```\n openstack server create \\\n    --flavor $FLAVOR --network $NETWORK \\\n    --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d44d317a3-6183-4063-868b-aa0728576f5f,destination_type\u003dvolume,size\u003d10,boot_index\u003d0 boot-from-nova-created-volume\n```  \n\ncreating the root disk form a image or snapshot is what most peopel think of when booting form volumes and is only supported for a single boot volume today.\n\nthe second flow is \"booting a VM form an existing volume\"\n```\nopenstack volume create \\\n    --image 44d317a3-6183-4063-868b-aa0728576f5f --size 10 \\\n    test-volume\n    \nopenstack server create \\\n    --flavor $FLAVOR --network $NETWORK \\\n    --volume 9c7f68d4-4d84-4c1e-83af-b8c6a56ad005\\\n    --wait boot-form-existing volume\n```\n\nyou can also do that with --block-device\n\n```\nopenstack volume create \\\n    --image 44d317a3-6183-4063-868b-aa0728576f5f --size 10 \\\n    test-volume\n    \nopenstack server create \\\n    --flavor $FLAVOR --network $NETWORK \\\n    --block-device source_type\u003dvolume,uuid\u003d\u003cvolume uuid\u003e,destination_type\u003dvolume,size\u003d10,boot_index\u003d0 boot-from-nova-created-volume\n```\n\nyou can boot form a pre created cinder volume\nhttps://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/user/launch-instance-from-volume.html\n\nwe do not actully documetn teh ablity to create a vm with mutli0ple bootable disk\ni beivle this was ofrignlly added for non libvirt backends.\n\nif you create the volumes manually and ensure that they are marked as bootable in cidner and pass those in it might eb possible to create a vime with 2 bootable voluems today but i think the orgings of the boot_index was orginally for rescue not as a generic feature.\n\nif we actully want to supprot creatign vms with multipe boot disks that to me is a feature not a bug.\n\n\nim not agains supproting that but we likely need to do a lot more testing and documentation changes then is propsoed in this patch.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"c7e4766d8d2fee0e12f1bf5e90c26b60dce95727","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":118,"context_line":"        # handling conf.boot_order is already implemented."},{"line_number":119,"context_line":"        # e.g openstack server create ..."},{"line_number":120,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d0"},{"line_number":121,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d1"},{"line_number":122,"context_line":"        if ("},{"line_number":123,"context_line":"            \u0027boot_index\u0027 in disk_info and"},{"line_number":124,"context_line":"            disk_info.get(\u0027use_device_boot_order\u0027, False)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":11,"id":"1d6628c8_a80befb0","line":121,"in_reply_to":"08d56482_5326602b","updated":"2026-01-16 10:57:50.000000000","message":"i think that is a bug but we dont have enough testing or docuemation fo this fucntionality to fully declare ti to be a properly supproted and tested Feature in the normal sence.\ni belive we inteded to suppot this functionality at some point in the past but clearly there are bugs in how that works.\n\nusing sata ro scisi may indeed be a workaround\nbringing parity to virtio-blk would fall in the catagory of a bug but as i noted env in the sata case teh existing fo this feature is pretty hidden.\n\ni triaged the bug as wishlist as it on the board between a feature and a bug btu i think we coudl likely proceed with it as a bug fix if we add sufficent testign and docs for how to do this to prevent regressiosn and inform users what to expect.\n\ni.e. that if you do this with ephmeral disk instead of cinder voluems you can lose data if you shelve the instance ectra.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":5112,"name":"Seyeong Kim","email":"seyeong.kim@canonical.com","username":"xtrusia"},"change_message_id":"dce9824997ae7f6c89628ee2dfe44b05420a1bb9","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":118,"context_line":"        # handling conf.boot_order is already implemented."},{"line_number":119,"context_line":"        # e.g openstack server create ..."},{"line_number":120,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d0"},{"line_number":121,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d1"},{"line_number":122,"context_line":"        if ("},{"line_number":123,"context_line":"            \u0027boot_index\u0027 in disk_info and"},{"line_number":124,"context_line":"            disk_info.get(\u0027use_device_boot_order\u0027, False)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":11,"id":"429e2129_ce83807e","line":121,"in_reply_to":"1d6628c8_a80befb0","updated":"2026-03-03 11:15:47.000000000","message":"I have added some doc and test code after your recommendation. but not sure it is enough. do you think this commit can be merged? thank you so much for your review.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"},{"author":{"_account_id":5112,"name":"Seyeong Kim","email":"seyeong.kim@canonical.com","username":"xtrusia"},"change_message_id":"c0dfaeeeb29d55df0672bf4822f3bda733a4d694","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":118,"context_line":"        # handling conf.boot_order is already implemented."},{"line_number":119,"context_line":"        # e.g openstack server create ..."},{"line_number":120,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d0"},{"line_number":121,"context_line":"        #     --block-device source_type\u003dsnapshot,uuid\u003d...,boot_index\u003d1"},{"line_number":122,"context_line":"        if ("},{"line_number":123,"context_line":"            \u0027boot_index\u0027 in disk_info and"},{"line_number":124,"context_line":"            disk_info.get(\u0027use_device_boot_order\u0027, False)"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":11,"id":"08d56482_5326602b","line":121,"in_reply_to":"9e44f7f2_3a06ebe2","updated":"2026-01-16 08:27:46.000000000","message":"Thanks for the clarification, Sean. I understand your point about this being a feature request.\n\nI\u0027m curious about one aspect though. since boot_index already works correctly with sata bus(as a test) type but not with virtio, would this inconsistency in behavior between bus types still be considered a feature request rather than a bug fix? I\u0027d like to make sure I understand the distinction correctly.","commit_id":"e49fa4ed3c36989ba13d89e514aed5541ae46467"}]}