PHD: add support for in-memory disk backends #740
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add an affordance for creating in-memory disk backends in PHD and populating them with data in a FAT filesystem (similar to what propolis-standalone and omicron do to create cloud-init data volumes). Add a small test that such volumes can be mounted and read as expected.
gjcolombo
added
storage
gjcolombo
commented
Aug 7, 2024
hawkw
reviewed
Aug 7, 2024
hawkw
approved these changes
Aug 9, 2024
gjcolombo
force-pushed
the
gjcolombo/phd-in-memory-disk-backend
branch
from
113adc1
to
3e77600
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add an affordance for creating in-memory disk backends in PHD and populating them with data in a FAT filesystem (similar to what propolis-standalone and omicron do to create cloud-init data volumes). Add a small test that such volumes can be mounted and read as expected.
A future PR will use this for integration testing of #301, but this stands alone so thought I would put it up as its own PR.