aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/libpod/runtime_renumber.go
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Re-add locks to volumes.Matthew Heon2019-08-28
| | | | | | | | | | 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>
* Add System event type and renumber, refresh eventsMatthew Heon2019-04-25
| | | | | | | Also, re-add locking to file eventer Write() to protect against concurrent events. Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <mheon@redhat.com>
* Do not make renumber shut down the runtimeMatthew Heon2019-02-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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>
* Move RenumberLocks into runtime initMatthew Heon2019-02-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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>
* Remove locks from volumesMatthew Heon2019-02-21
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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>
* Expand renumber to also renumber pod locksMatthew Heon2019-02-21
| | | | Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <matthew.heon@pm.me>
* Add initial version of renumber backendMatthew Heon2019-02-21
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>