runc: split Pipe, Io, and PipedIo to async and sync modules #335
Conversation
|
I think this change is great ,but how about using pipe but not using fifo directly, because there's so many problem which I meet in FIFO direct. #278 |
|
My goal is to do a refactoring so that the code can compile. I am happy to rebase on your Pr if that works |
I think I should wait for your split , because I forget the sync feature too, that pipe problem is only existing in async feature. |
I wonder why is it not included. On Linux, the entire Cargo workspace should be included? |
|
I was AFK this entire week. Will follow up to address the comments when I get back to work. |
Signed-off-by: jiaxiao zhou <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jiaxiao Zhou (Mossaka) <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jiaxiao Zhou (Mossaka) <[email protected]>
Okay, I will leave my PR to merge as it is, and the issue regarding FIFO could be left to a follow up. I don't want to block your PR |
I think we are missing a |
The runc shim, like the containerd-shim, has a 'sync' feature that is not checked by the workspace. Thus we need to add that individually to the CI to get full coverage Signed-off-by: Jiaxiao Zhou (Mossaka) <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jiaxiao Zhou (Mossaka) <[email protected]>
|
Can we merge this PR now? @mxpv |
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
3 participants
An attempt to resolve #326 (comment)
Questions: should we add
cargo build -p runcto the CI since the CI is not building runc with default target at all?Can you take a look at this PR? @ningmingxiao, @mxpv