-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
ADD operation now returns the IP if it has already been allocated for the same container id and interface #1
Conversation
for the same container id and interface
Building with the flag enabled prevents our nodes from running the binary as it'll require glibc_2.32.
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.
would it make sense to publish this upstream?
I'm not sure i understand |
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.
Looks good. I have also 1 question to open discussion here:
What would be the difficulty to have a criteo-host-local
in addition to host-local
, so that we don't mix upstream tools which follow CNI specs with our tooling? Would this need too much copy/paste?
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ import ( | |||
|
|||
"github.com/containernetworking/cni/pkg/skel" | |||
"github.com/containernetworking/cni/pkg/types" | |||
"github.com/containernetworking/cni/pkg/types/020" | |||
types020 "github.com/containernetworking/cni/pkg/types/020" |
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.
Same, can you explain this change?
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.
Hmm i didn't notice this one. it might be vscode that made the change
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.
can you remove this then please?
I don't think there's much difficulty. The downside i see is that we'll have a lot of duplicate code. |
This reverts commit b5f712f.
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.
Looks good! You can merge it :)
If you have some time, it could be great to ask upstream what they think about either modifying the spec to allow this binary to have one option to do that, or maybe to support an other binary to behave differently.
No description provided.