-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
WIP: Staged layer creation #378
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
Draft
Luap99
wants to merge
4
commits into
containers:main
Choose a base branch
from
Luap99:staged-layer-creation
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bd6977a
storage/internal/tempdir: add StageAddition()
Luap99 5f3c6c6
storage: avoid layer lookup in applyDiffWithOptions()
Luap99 164637c
storage: avoid layer lookup in applyDiffFromStagingDirectory()
Luap99 348a11e
storage: simplify ApplyDiff() in overlay driver
Luap99 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Very non-blocking
I’m a bit worried about trusting the out-of-
layers.go
code to keep a correct locked value oflayer
here; ISTR we mostly keep “this data is kept locked and consistent” to thelayers.go
layer of the call stack; instore.go
, aLayer
is more of a “possibly-already-obsolete snapshot of data”.Technically this clearly works (we are holding the RW layer store lock here).
As a general long-term direction, I’d like to get rid of the “if !layerExists { report error }; doOperation” pattern, in favor of a direct ”doOperation; handle layerDoesNotExistError“. This applies to the calls from
store.go
tolayers.go
, mostly just because the latter is shorter; and it applies much more to the calls from external callers tostore.go
, because in that case two calls means two expensive locking operations, and possibly the situation changing in the meantime. (Also, theGet
calls also serve as a “resolve name or ID prefix to a full ID” step — ideally that should not be happening at all, after we process/resolve CLI inputs. But changing that at the external c/storage API surface is somewhat risky.)So, I’d prefer
rwLayerStore.applyDFSD
to continue to accept an ID, and maybelayers.go
can add an intermediate function with a*Layer
.But then again, see the comment just above — this is ~mostly dead code. That… means both that it is not worth investing much into, and that it is at higher risk of accidentally being broken.
Also, there’s
.create
already using a pointer, so this is by no means a hard rule.