Open Stack

pls note that actually this patch doesn't have minumum kernel requirement
because it only uses 'mount --bind' and 'net namespace', not use 'mount
namespace'. ('mount --bind' is since linux 2.4, 'net namespace' is since
Linux 3.0, 'mount namespace' is since Linux 3.8).

so I think sanity checks for 3.8 is not need, any thoughts ?

thanks.


On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Kevin Benton <blak111 at gmail.com> wrote:

> >If we can consolidate that and use a single tool from the master neutron
> repository, that would be my vote.
>
> +1 with a hook mechanism so the sanity checks stay in the *aas repos and
> they are only run if installed.
>
>>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at mestery.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 01/20/2015 05:40 PM, Paul Michali wrote:
>>>
>>> Review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/146508/ is adding support for
>>> StrongSwan VPN, which needs mount bind to be able to specify different
>>> paths for config files.
>>>
>>>  The code, which used some older patch, does a test for /proc/1/ns/net,
>>> instead of /proc/1/ns/mnt, because it stated that the latter is only
>>> supported in kernel 3.8+. That was a while ago, and I'm wondering if the
>>> condition is still true.  If we know that for Kilo and on, we'll be dealing
>>> with 3.8+ kernels, we could use the more accurate test.
>>>
>>>  Can we require 3.8+ kernel for this?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we can but it's better to check with distributions. Red Hat
>>> wise, we ship a kernel that is newer than 3.8.
>>>
>>>  If so, how and where do we ensure that is true?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ideally, you would implement a sanity check for the feature you need
>>> from the kernel. Though it opens a question of whether we want to ship
>>> multiple sanity check tools for each of repos (neutron + 3 *aas repos).
>>>
>>> If we can consolidate that and use a single tool from the master neutron
>> repository, that would be my vote.
>>
>>>
>>>  Also, if you can kindly review the code here:
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/146508/5/neutron_vpnaas/services/vpn/common/netns_wrapper.py,
>>> I'd really appreciate it, as I'm not versed in the Linux proc files at all.
>>>
>>>  Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>   PCM (Paul Michali)
>>>
>>>  IRC............ pc_m (irc.freenode.com)
>>> Twitter....... @pmichali
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Benton
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Best Regards
Zhang Hua(张华）
Software Engineer | Canonical
IRC:  zhhuabj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150123/3deec76f/attachment.html>