Skip to content
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

not mounted layers should be reported as info not error #20456

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 24, 2023

Conversation

rhatdan
Copy link
Member

@rhatdan rhatdan commented Oct 23, 2023

There is a potential race condition we are seeing where we are seeing a message about a removed container which could be caused by a non mounted container, this change should clarify which is causing it.

Also if the container does not exists, just warn the user instead of reporting an error, not much the user can do.

Fixes: #19702

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added release-note-none approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. labels Oct 23, 2023
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented Oct 23, 2023

@edsantiago might help.

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Oct 23, 2023

Code LGTM

} else {
switch {
case errors.Is(err, storage.ErrLayerNotMounted):
logrus.Info("Storage for container %s is not mounted: %v", c.ID(), err)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
logrus.Info("Storage for container %s is not mounted: %v", c.ID(), err)
logrus.Infof("Storage for container %s is not mounted: %v", c.ID(), err)

There is a potential race condition we are seeing where
we are seeing a message about a removed container which
could be caused by a non mounted container, this change
should clarify which is causing it.

Also if the container does not exists, just warn the user
instead of reporting an error, not much the user can do.

Fixes: containers#19702

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]

Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>
@ashley-cui
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/hold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 23, 2023
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Oct 23, 2023
Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/unhold

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Oct 24, 2023
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Oct 24, 2023

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rhatdan, vrothberg

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot merged commit 36b4199 into containers:main Oct 24, 2023
99 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Jan 23, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 23, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

podman stop, after kube play: Storage for container xxx has been removed
4 participants