mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mesos Reviewbot Windows <revi...@mesos.apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 63063: WIP: Modified Containerizer::launch interface to allow repeated launch.
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2017 03:02:13 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/63063/#review188261
-----------------------------------------------------------



FAIL: Failed to apply the dependent review: 61805.

Failed command: `python.exe .\support\apply-reviews.py -n -r 61805`

All the build artifacts available at: http://dcos-win.westus.cloudapp.azure.com/mesos-build/review/63063

Relevant logs:

- [apply-review-61805-stdout.log](http://dcos-win.westus.cloudapp.azure.com/mesos-build/review/63063/logs/apply-review-61805-stdout.log):

```
error: patch failed: src/slave/paths.cpp:69
error: src/slave/paths.cpp: patch does not apply
```

- Mesos Reviewbot Windows


On Oct. 17, 2017, 1:43 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/63063/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 17, 2017, 1:43 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7305
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7305
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> There is some existing tech debt around requiring the caller of
> `Containerizer::launch` to call `Containerizer::destroy` if the launch
> fails (see MESOS-6214).  For nested and standalone containers, the
> side effect of this results in accidentally destroying running
> containers if you make the same call an even number of times.
> 
> For example, suppose the user launches a valid nested container
> with an ID of 'parent.child'. If the user issues the same call to
> launch 'parent.child' again, this second call will fail *and* will
> also destroy the first container.
> 
> This commit prevents repeated launch calls from destroying containers
> by changing the return value of `Containerizer::launch`.  There are
> now four possible return values:
>   * The launch succeeded.
>   * The standalone/nested container already exists.
>   * The given ContainerConfig is not supported.
>   * The launch failed.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 06d68eef5de7745e32f0e808f11016bcc285dd8f 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 587f009384f0c7ef87482686578dc822d3d5b208 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 449bb5d0902936faae7bf9bae9c703b219aed842

>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp b602a5698cae12686f51c4b9370a06042cda6270 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 292eecbca246edf068ec8c262aff4f3ce9cd8c67 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 6d356ccf82f36df8c6f558fb0ace7d9f982a3d6b

>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 78fdd21f8b7ede4beedff31ba2b488ffebd4ea31

>   src/slave/http.cpp f2e06aff95e0628624b6ed25de222fd3f3577a0b 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp aea1e948209c7c8945665915bc2f6d8eb47814ef 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 4d7dc8e9a3901b00103031e24e5d6328d0f2e2ad 
>   src/tests/agent_container_api_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63063/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Doesn't build yet, but I'd like to see if the interface change makes sense as it stands.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>


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