-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 376
Determine if ethtool package can be dropped in favour of an upstream vendor #71
Comments
/cc @mcastelino. |
We needed only a few things from this package and that's why we copy/pasted what was needed instead of importing the whole thing. If we think we might need those other functionalities from the upstream package, then yes I agree we might reconsider it, and import it directly. |
@jodh-intel @egernst @sboeuf I would keep the upstream package as we need other ethtool functionality for new use cases that we plan to add to Kata like RDMA support. |
@mcastelino we're not relying on the upstream package, so you mean we would move to the upstream one, right ? |
I'd vote for that if at all possible since, stepping back, we're using a copy of an upstream package. We don't even have |
Agree, I moved from the vendoring the ethtool package to using a copy of the code to keep the code-base smaller. If we are going to need this for other functionality as well, and as @jodh-intel mentioned we need to consider security fixes, I would vendor in the upstream package. |
@amshinde I think everybody agreed, you can go ahead and vendor the upstream package ! |
We were using code copied from github.com/safchain/ethtool. Vendor in upstream package instead to use additional functionality added in. Fixes kata-containers#71 Signed-off-by: Archana Shinde <archana.m.shinde@intel.com>
oci: Convert the OCI spec into libcontainer config
The
ethtool
package:... originally created under:
Comes from an upstream project:
We should determine if we can drop this package an instead vendor-in the official package above.
The upstream appears to have more functionality now than when we imported it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: