common: remove Cgroups v1 support (podman6) #387
Conversation
|
✅ A new PR has been created in buildah to vendor these changes: containers/buildah#6423 |
|
@containers/container-libs-maintainers I think it'd be nice to have a podman6 or cgv1 or some such label here as well. Mind creating one please? |
lsm5
changed the title
|
ah if it's manual merges here, then no need I guess. |
Luap99
added
the
podman 6
|
yeah manual merge, keep the PR as draft until we branched. Still a label to track all the things is still a good idea so I added the "podman 6" label. |
Fixes: RUN-3567 (partly) Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@redhat.com>
| // Load loads an existing cgroup control. | ||
| func Load(path string) (*CgroupControl, error) { | ||
| cgroup2, err := IsCgroup2UnifiedMode() | ||
| _, err := IsCgroup2UnifiedMode() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are several other callers of this, and quite a few code paths that could potentially be deleted if this never returns false, nil. Do we want to update those as well? If not, what’s the exact scope of changes we do want to make?
Assuming we do change all of the callers to expect (_, err) or (true, nil), should wereplace the IsCgroup2UnifiedMode function by a function with some other name (IsProcCgroupMounted???), or perhaps remove it entirely?
But then again, note that non-Linux code is hard-coded to return (false, nil). Is that still what we want?
| } | ||
| control := &CgroupControl{ | ||
| cgroup2: cgroup2, | ||
| cgroup2: true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Eliminating this field if it is always true would be an intermediate step to removing a fair bit of code.)
4 participants
Resolves: RUN-3567 (partly)