| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With the advent of Podman 2.0.0 we crossed the magical barrier of go
modules. While we were able to continue importing all packages inside
of the project, the project could not be vendored anymore from the
outside.
Move the go module to new major version and change all imports to
`github.com/containers/libpod/v2`. The renaming of the imports
was done via `gomove` [1].
[1] https://github.com/KSubedi/gomove
Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <rothberg@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This will require a 'podman system renumber' after being applied
to get lock numbers for existing volumes.
Add the DB backend code for rewriting volume configs and use it
for updating lock numbers as part of 'system renumber'.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also, re-add locking to file eventer Write() to protect against
concurrent events.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <mheon@redhat.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The original intent behind the requirement was to ensure that, if
two SHM lock structs were open at the same time, we should not
make such a runtime available to the user, and should clean it up
instead.
It turns out that we don't even need to open a second SHM lock
struct - if we get an error mapping the first one due to a lock
count mismatch, we can just delete it, and it cleans itself up
when it errors. So there's no reason not to return a valid
runtime.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We can't do renumbering after init - we need to open a
potentially invalid locks file (too many/too few locks), and then
potentially delete the old locks and make new ones.
We need to be in init to bypass the checks that would otherwise
make this impossible.
This leaves us with two choices: make RenumberLocks a separate
entrypoint from NewRuntime, duplicating a lot of configuration
load code (we need to know where the locks live, how many there
are, etc) - or modify NewRuntime to allow renumbering during it.
Previous experience says the first is not really a viable option
and produces massive code bloat, so the second it is.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I was looking into why we have locks in volumes, and I'm fairly
convinced they're unnecessary.
We don't have a state whose accesses we need to guard with locks
and syncs. The only real purpose for the lock was to prevent
concurrent removal of the same volume.
Looking at the code, concurrent removal ought to be fine with a
bit of reordering - one or the other might fail, but we will
successfully evict the volume from the state.
Also, remove the 'prune' bool from RemoveVolume. None of our
other API functions accept it, and it only served to toggle off
more verbose error messages.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
|
|
Renumber is a way of renumbering container locks after the number
of locks available has changed.
For now, renumber only works with containers.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
|
