Automatic merge from submit-queue
servicecontroller: use consistent node criteria
We have two node selection functions: includeNodeFromNodeList and
getNodeConditionPredicate, and the logic is different.
The logic should be the same, so remove includeNodeFromNodeList and just
use getNodeConditionPredicate everywhere.
Fix#45772
```release-note
servicecontroller: Fix node selection logic on initial LB creation
```
We have two node selection functions: includeNodeFromNodeList and
getNodeConditionPredicate, and the logic is different.
The logic should be the same, so remove includeNodeFromNodeList and just
use getNodeConditionPredicate everywhere.
Fix#45772
Automatic merge from submit-queue (batch tested with PRs 40060, 44860, 44865, 44825, 44162)
servicecontroller: remove unused zone field
The zone field was unused, and this complicated e.g. #39996
```release-note
NONE
```
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Exclude master from LoadBalancer / NodePort
The servicecontroller documents that the master is excluded from the
LoadBalancer / NodePort, but this is broken for clusters where we are
using taints for the master (as introduced in 1.6), instead of marking
the master as unschedulable.
This restores the desired documented behaviour, by excluding nodes that
are labeled as masters with the new 1.6 labels, even if they use the new
1.6 taints.
Fix#33884
```release-note
Exclude nodes labeled as master from LoadBalancer / NodePort; restores documented behaviour
```
The servicecontroller documents that the master is excluded from the
LoadBalancer / NodePort, but this is broken for clusters where we are
using taints for the master (as introduced in 1.6), instead of marking
the master as unschedulable.
This restores the desired documented behaviour, by excluding nodes that
are labeled as masters with the new 1.6 labels, even if they use the new
1.6 taints.
Fix#33884
Where possible, switch the scheduler to use generated listers and
informers. There are still some places where it probably makes more
sense to use one-off reflectors/informers (listing/watching just a
single node, listing/watching scheduled & unscheduled pods using a field
selector).
Automatic merge from submit-queue
Curating Owners: pkg/controller
cc @jsafrane @mikedanese @bprashanth @derekwaynecarr @thockin @saad-ali
In an effort to expand the existing pool of reviewers and establish a
two-tiered review process (first someone **lgtms** and then someone
experienced in the project **approves**), we are adding new reviewers to
existing owners files.
## If You Care About the Process:
We did this by algorithmically figuring out who’s contributed code to
the project and in what directories. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work
perfectly: people that have made mechanical code changes (e.g change the
copyright header across all directories) end up as reviewers in lots of
places.
Instead of using pure commit data, we generated an excessively large
list of reviewers and pruned based on all time commit data, recent
commit data and review data (number of PRs commented on).
At this point we have a decent list of reviewers, but it needs one last
pass for fine tuning.
## TLDR:
As an owner of a sig/directory and a leader of the project, here’s what
we need from you:
1. Use PR https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/35715 as an example.
2. The pull-request is made editable, please edit the OWNERS file to add
the names of people that should be reviewing code in the future in the **reviewers** section. You probably do NOT need to modify the **approvers** section.
3. Notify me if you want some OWNERS file to be removed. Being an approver or reviewer
of a parent directory makes you a reviewer/approver of the subdirectories too, so not all
OWNERS files may be necessary.
4. Please use ALIAS if you want to use the same list of people over and
over again (don't hesitate to ask me for help, or use the pull-request
above as an example)
Automatic merge from submit-queue
bump log level on service status update
ref: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/38349
I tried to reproduce the problem in #38349 and failed. Not sure why service status update failed and service controller skip status update in the next round. What I have observed is that if service status update failed due to conflict, the next round of processServiceUpdate will correct it.
Bumping log level to get a better signal when it occurs.
Many providers need to do some sort of node name -> IP or instanceID
lookup before they can use the list of hostnames passed to
EnsureLoadBalancer/UpdateLoadBalancer.
This change just passes the full Node object instead of simply the node
name, allowing providers to use the node's provider ID and cached
addresses without additional lookups. Using `node.Name` reproduces the
old behaviour.
dhilipkumars