From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469E9941B1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:05:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3D41024AC1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:05:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:05:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 90891442A9
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <44675499-d0a9-e463-394b-4481357f8938@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:05:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/105.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
References: <20220921075313.65674-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
 <20220921075313.65674-2-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220921075313.65674-2-w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH common 2/2] cgroup: get mode by
 checking /sys/fs/cgroup mount point
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:05:41 -0000

Am 21/09/2022 um 09:53 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller:
> Since even in pure unified layouts there may be a
> `name=systemd` v1 cgroup mounted additionally (manually or
> potentially via systemd-nspawn apparently), we should check
> what's actually mounted at `/sys/fs/cgroup` rather than
> whether v1 cgroups exist.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  src/PVE/CGroup.pm | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!

> +	my $mounts = PVE::ProcFSTools::parse_proc_mounts();
> +	for my $entry (@$mounts) {
> +	    my ($what, $dir, $fstype, $opts) = @$entry;

style nit: we nowadays try to use $foo->@* for new additions, but really no hard
feelings so I kept it as is.