-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.6k
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
Remove skip evaluation of symlinks to data root on IoT Core #38020
Conversation
pkg/system/syscall_windows.go
Outdated
@@ -120,8 +120,6 @@ func IsWindowsClient() bool { | |||
|
|||
// IsIoTCore returns true if the currently running image is based off of | |||
// Windows 10 IoT Core. | |||
// @engine maintainers - this function should not be removed or modified as it | |||
// is used to enforce licensing restrictions on Windows. | |||
func IsIoTCore() bool { |
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 like this function is no longer used in our code, so perhaps we can remove it altogether (a quick search on GitHub also didn't show any users of this)
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.
Yes, this is the last user of this function after #38000
ping @jhowardmsft @darstahl PTAL 🤗 |
@taylorb-microsoft Can you loop in one of the IoT guys to verify. I believe this is OK, but I'd like their verification first. |
Thanks! Yes; this was purely based on that comment, so would be good to double check 🤗 |
I no longer have an environment to test this, but LGTM pending verification that it works as intended on an IoT build. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #38020 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 37.32%
=========================================
Files ? 609
Lines ? 45231
Branches ? 0
=========================================
Hits ? 16882
Misses ? 26056
Partials ? 2293 |
Hold fire on this - internal testing is throwing an issue. It's being investigated. |
e54c880
to
b4d945c
Compare
@jiria Following on from our discussion yesterday, are you OK with this? I think it's safe now, but if you can confirm. |
@jhowardmsft looks good to me. |
b4d945c
to
4023f8b
Compare
rebased, and removed "WIP" |
4023f8b
to
40bef75
Compare
rebased again; @jhowardmsft @kolyshkin PTAL |
40bef75
to
9f1fa39
Compare
This fix was added in 8e71b1e to work around a go issue (golang/go#20506). That issue was fixed in golang/go@66c03d3, which is part of Go 1.10 and up. This reverts the changes that were made in 8e71b1e, and are no longer needed. Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
9f1fa39
to
763454e
Compare
Experimental failure looks to be a flaky; https://jenkins.dockerproject.org/job/Docker-PRs-experimental/45949/console
Daemon logs attached:
|
ok, this is rebased and green |
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.
LGTM @jiria FYI
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.
LGTM
This fix was added in 8e71b1e (#33498) to work around a go issue (golang/go#20506).
That issue was fixed in golang/go@66c03d3,
which is part of Go 1.10 and up. This reverts the changes that were made in
8e71b1e, and are no longer needed.