-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
info: add cgroups2 #4141
info: add cgroups2 #4141
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe 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 |
59c93d6
to
db18804
Compare
LGTM
…On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 07:21 OpenShift CI Robot ***@***.***> wrote:
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is *APPROVED*
This pull-request has been approved by: *giuseppe
<#4141
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here
<https://go.k8s.io/bot-commands?repo=containers%2Flibpod>.
The pull request process is described here
<https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/owners.md#the-code-review-process>
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
- OWNERS <https://github.com/containers/libpod/blob/master/OWNERS>
[giuseppe]
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4141>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB3AOCGYSXXECWKSJAAPEETQMHOKNANCNFSM4I3ZREVA>
.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
libpod/info.go
Outdated
if err != nil { | ||
return nil, errors.Wrapf(err, "error reading cgroups mode") | ||
} | ||
info["cgroupv2"] = unified |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cgroup2? cgroupv2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe we should set this to a string instead - "cgroupmode" = "v2" or "v1"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
legacy/hybrid/unified?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i like the idea from @mheon
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the issue is that currently we have only code to detect the unified mode (that is cgroups v2). Should we probably rename it to "cgroups-unified-mode"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Users understand cgroups V1 and V2, I don't want the "unified" mode exposed. When I see unified, I get confused and think it is a mode that covers both V1 and V2.
"CgroupVersion" = V2
That way 5 years from now when V3 is all the rage ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed to be "CgroupVersion" = "v1" | "v2"
Closes: containers#4080 Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
db18804
to
b40e44a
Compare
LGTM assuming happy tests |
/lgtm |
Closes: #4080
Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano [email protected]