Hi @zhaixiaojuan. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a containerd member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Hi @zhaixiaojuan,

It looks like this isn't ready for review yet. opencontainers/runtime-spec#1187 needs to be resolved first, then the go.mod needs to be updated to have the new dependency. You may also want to review the contributing guidelines, which covers the requirement for a DCO sign-off.

Thanks!

Additionally, since you appear to work for Loongson: we have no access to a machine that supports LoongArch64. It would be helpful for us to have access to resources for CI.

Thank you very much, I will update go.mod and related dependencies after opencontainers/runtime-spec#1187 is merged.
For build testing, can we remotely configure machines to run CI?

This PR is stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. This PR will be closed in 7 days unless new comments are made or the stale label is removed.

This PR was closed because it has been stalled for 7 days with no activity.

@samuelkarp

Hi, opencontainers/runtime-spec#1229 has been merged and v1.2.1 has been released.
opencontainers/runtime-spec#1187 has been replaced by opencontainers/runtime-spec#1229.

Can this PR be reopened? Regarding the CI resources you mentioned, what specific work do we need to do and what resources do we need to provide?

The repository that submitted this pull request has been deleted.

It looks like this PR cannot be reopened, but you can open a new one with the same change now.

Regarding the CI resources you mentioned, what specific work do we need to do and what resources do we need to provide?

We fully support Linux amd64, Linux arm64, and (with help from Microsoft) Windows amd64. We have CI resources that can be used in presubmits (to validate pull requests), merge queue (to make sure a merged PR won't break the branch), and periodic tests (to catch anything that was missed). We also use these CI resources to build our release artifacts. We drive most of this through GitHub Actions via GitHub-hosted runners; I don't believe this is a possibility for LoongArch64. If we wanted to have a similar level of support, we'd need:

1. Hardware resources to run CI
2. Management of those resources, including things such as base OS image updates and other maintenance tasks (we don't have to do this ourselves with GitHub-hosted runners, for example)
3. To have either self-hosted Actions runners (though it does not appear to be possible with LoongArch64) or the development and management of a similar CI system + similar CI integration (and then the ongoing maintenance of that)
4. To have help diagnosing/troubleshooting architecture-specific issues that occur

On the other hand, we could merge a PR like this without providing full upstream support for the architecture. We have a similar stance for experimental support for alternative operating systems like FreeBSD. Loongson could take on the burden of providing support for containerd for their customers.

I'll let the rest of the maintainers chime in if they have a different opinion here. We're also happy to discuss this in our community meeting or in the #containerd-dev channel on the CNCF slack.

Hi, I resubmitted a PR: #11727