mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexander Rukletsov" <ruklet...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 35433: Sent StatusUpdates if checkpointed resources don't exist on the slave.
Date Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:57:36 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review88513
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Want to link the RR with MESOS-2491 for posterity?


src/slave/slave.cpp (line 1399)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141093>

    I believe you've chosen `TASK_LOST` because the appropriate `CheckpointResourcesMessage`
is about to arrive and restarting the task may succeed. If this is the case, let's expand
the comment.



src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1409 - 1416)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141095>

    Let's add `TaskStatus::Reason` for that! How about `REASON_RESOURCES_UNKNOWN`? I'm ok
with doing it in a separate RR in order not to block this patch.



src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1420 - 1422)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141094>

    I've seen your discussion about these lines and that you plan to follow-up on this. In
the meantime, mind throwing a comment, why do we need to remove the framework here? (I believe
it is because we could have created it one step before in `runTask()`, right?)



src/slave/slave.cpp (line 1446)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141096>

    Ditto.


- Alexander Rukletsov


On June 19, 2015, 12:42 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 19, 2015, 12:42 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Benjamin Hindman, and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> No bug was observed (yet), but realized I forgot about this in the dynamic reservations
patches.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp a5ad29f59fadba919ed82ba2892c2febe551660b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message