On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:32:04PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Dwight Engen ([email protected]): > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:05:24 -0400 > > Stéphane Graber <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:00:53PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > Quoting Dwight Engen ([email protected]): > > > > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:54:46 +0000 > > > > > Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Dwight Engen ([email protected]): > > > > > > > This change accepts the same strings for lxc.arch that > > > > > > > setarch(8) does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When outputting the setting, use i386 instead of x86 since the > > > > > > > later is not a valid input to setarch, nor will the kernel > > > > > > > output UTS_MACHINE as x86. The kernel sets utsname.machine to > > > > > > > i[3456]86, which are all map to PER_LINUX32. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that we continue to parse plain x86 as PER_LINUX32 so as > > > > > > > not to break existing lxc configuration files. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dwight Engen <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > the first part (expanding the list of allowed inputs) seems > > > > > > fine, but the second part seems like it could break existing > > > > > > callers. > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. Using an older lxc version with a config > > > > > that's been cloned with a newer one won't work because the older > > > > > one won't parse i386. Maybe we should output i686 instead since > > > > > older lxc's will parse that. > > > > > > > > > > Or are you thinking it is too dangerous that there are callers > > > > > outside of lxc that would be confused by seeing i686 instead of > > > > > x86? I can drop > > > > > > > > Right, whiel it's highly unlikely, I could see some script parsing > > > > that output and being confused by new values. > > > > > > > > > the output part, it just seemed a bit wrong that we're using a > > > > > value that isn't valid from the kernel nor for setarch. > > > > > > > > Admittedly even templates seem to use i686 rather than x86. So > > > > perhaps outputting i686 is the best thing to do. > > > > > > > > -serge > > > > > > I think it's reasonable to switch to i686 by default, I won't > > > cherry-pick this change into stable so even if something does use > > > this, it won't suddenly break for our stable 1.0.x users. > > > > Stéphane, do you think just expanding the list part makes sense for > > stable? If so I can split up the change and resend patches. > > I think it does, as I don't see any way that could break anyone.
Yeah, I'm fine with that, so two commits would help cherry-picking. -- Stéphane Graber Ubuntu developer http://www.ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
