-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 251
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
chunked: do not write cache file to RO store #2031
chunked: do not write cache file to RO store #2031
Conversation
if the layer is R/O, do not write a cache file. Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <[email protected]>
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe 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 |
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.
Doesn’t this effectively completely stop looking for files in the read-only layers? It doesn’t stop writing the cache, it stops also creating it. And without an entry in c.layers
, there can be no matches found in that layer.
*shrug* I don’t have a strong opinion on impact of that — avoiding cross-store linking might well be a good idea — but I’d like at least the comment in the code to be correct about the impact.
(And, ideally, the various implications of ALS/AIS, especially WRT cross-store sharing and dependencies, would be documented in detail somewhere, but I can see an argument that that’s not this PR.)
LGTM |
/lgtm |
A follow-up to containers#2031 . Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <[email protected]>
#2079 . |
A follow-up to containers#2031 . Signed-off-by: Miloslav Trmač <[email protected]>
if the layer is R/O, do not write a cache file.