Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Re-organize hypervisor implementations #18977

Conversation

jakecorrenti
Copy link
Member

Ensures that for each hypervisor implementation, their config.go file deals with implementing the VirtProvider interface while the machine.go file is for implementing the VM interface.

Moves the Virtualization type into a common file and created wrappers for the individual hypervisors. Allows for shared functions that are exactly the same while providing the flexibility to create hypervisor-specific implementations of the functions.

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

@jakecorrenti jakecorrenti force-pushed the move-qemu-functions-to-proper-files branch from d2c5134 to 9d89c9c Compare June 23, 2023 13:09
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jun 23, 2023

LGTM

@jakecorrenti jakecorrenti force-pushed the move-qemu-functions-to-proper-files branch from 9d89c9c to e05c4fd Compare June 23, 2023 13:35
Ensures that for each hypervisor implementation, their `config.go` file
deals with implementing the `VirtProvider` interface while the
`machine.go` file is for implementing the `VM` interface.

Moves the `Virtualization` type into a common file and
created wrappers for the individual hypervisors. Allows for shared
functions that are exactly the same while providing the flexibility to
create hypervisor-specific implementations of the functions.

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]

Signed-off-by: Jake Correnti <[email protected]>
@jakecorrenti jakecorrenti force-pushed the move-qemu-functions-to-proper-files branch from e05c4fd to 5160342 Compare June 23, 2023 15:33
Copy link
Member

@TomSweeneyRedHat TomSweeneyRedHat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
I restarted a timed out test that looked to be a flake. I would like a @bbaude head nod on this.

@jakecorrenti
Copy link
Member Author

@baude @ashley-cui PTAL

Copy link
Member

@ashley-cui ashley-cui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, great job!

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jun 27, 2023

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 27, 2023
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jun 27, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jakecorrenti, rhatdan

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 27, 2023
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 4dc2e08 into containers:main Jun 27, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 25, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 25, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants