mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Avinash sridharan <avin...@mesosphere.io>
Subject Re: Review Request 51402: Added nested container check in provisioner destroy.
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2016 16:46:02 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#review147768
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (line 181)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment215008>

    s/hierarchies/hierarchy



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (line 232)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment215009>

    s/dirrectly/directly
    s/not necessarily .... recursive/without needing to make a recursive call to destroy



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (line 428)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment215011>

    s/recover/`recover`
    s/destroy/`destroy`



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (line 432)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment215012>

    both cases ? Aren't there three cases listed above?
    
    Also remove this line (should ... sub-container). Its redundant.
    
    s/The following check ../ The following check ensures this condition is satisfied.



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (line 438)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment215015>

    Well we are probably going to run O(100) containers on an agent. So don't think this check
would ever be too expensive. 
    
    I would say something like:
    // NOTE: We generally expect the number of containers on an agent to be O(100), hence
this check should not be expensive. However, in the event that the number of containers are
much larger  than O(100) this check might become expensive.


- Avinash sridharan


On Aug. 29, 2016, 9:20 p.m., Gilbert Song wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 29, 2016, 9:20 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Artem Harutyunyan, Jie Yu, Joseph Wu, and
Kevin Klues.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6067
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6067
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added nested container check in provisioner destroy.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp 8e35ff49ec99a242e764095dcfbb541c5e41ec71

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gilbert Song
> 
>


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