-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
Fix podman stop -t -1 CID #21826
Fix podman stop -t -1 CID #21826
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: rhatdan 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.
LGTM
Older than me counts as infinity :^)
Even older then me. |
/lgtm |
should we have a test to prevent regression (system or e2e) ? |
Sure if you can figure a way to not wait 68 years to complete. :^) |
#21811 (comment) shows you were this is broken. |
Currently if a user specifies a negative time to stop a container the code ends up specifying the negative time to time.Duration which treats it as 0. By settine the default to max.Unint32 we end up with a positive number which indicates > 68 years which is probably close enough to infinity for our use case. Fixes: containers#21811 Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>
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
Currently if a user specifies a negative time to stop a container the code ends up specifying the negative time to time.Duration which treats it as 0. By settine the default to max.Unint32 we end up with a positive number which indicates > 68 years which is probably close enough to infinity for our use case.
Fixes: #21811
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?