search

kubernetes-sigs / descheduler

Descheduler for Kubernetes
https://sigs.k8s.io/descheduler
Apache License 2.0
4.23k stars 645 forks source link

Add Support to ppc64le Architecture #1313

Open diogomurta opened 7 months ago

diogomurta commented 7 months ago

This request aims to have support for the ppc64le Architecture used in OpenShift installed on IBM Power, widely used in on-premises environments.

linux-foundation-easycla[bot] commented 7 months ago

CLA Signed

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

k8s-ci-robot commented 7 months ago

Welcome @diogomurta!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes-sigs/descheduler 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes-sigs/descheduler has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. :smiley:

k8s-ci-robot commented 7 months ago

Hi @diogomurta. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
k8s-ci-robot commented 7 months ago

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign damemi for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files: - **[OWNERS](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/descheduler/blob/master/OWNERS)** Approvers can indicate their approval by writing `/approve` in a comment Approvers can cancel approval by writing `/approve cancel` in a comment
a7i commented 6 months ago

I would be supportive for this but we need to make the corresponding changes in here as well. I'm happy to help with that if others think that we should support additional archs.

cc: @knelasevero and @jklaw90 thoughts?

@diogomurta would you please squash your commits?

jklaw90 commented 6 months ago

@a7i sounds good, ibm 390x might be worth adding too.

a7i commented 4 months ago

/label tide/merge-method-squash /ok-to-test

I can try to get this in 0.30

k8s-triage-robot commented 1 month ago

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

You can:

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle stale

k8s-triage-robot commented 4 days ago

The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough active contributors to adequately respond to all PRs.

This bot triages PRs according to the following rules:

You can:

Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community.

/lifecycle rotten

knelasevero commented 3 days ago

cc: @knelasevero and @jklaw90 thoughts?

Also supportive, I would just be mindful of giving it or not giving it official support to those different architectures, and we should decide if we would prioritise architecture specific issues if they arrise (had that issue and discussion in another repo, that's why I'm bringing this up)

Anyways I don't think this will be a problem.