> On March 21, 2014, 8:46 p.m., Adam B wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, line 974
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19542/diff/1/?file=531713#file531713line974>
> >
> >     Since allocator->frameworkActivated() calls allocate(), shouldn't we 
> > make the frameworkActivated() call after we "Remove any offers [previously] 
> > sent to this framework"? Otherwise, the allocate() call (in 
> > frameworkActivated) might allocate/offer new resources and then the 
> > following loop could call resourcesRecovered on the newly received 
> > offer/resources.

I don't think this is a problem because the offers sent by the allocator are 
only processed by the master (Master::offer) after it finishes executing this 
function. But I do think calling frameworkActivated() after removing current 
offers make sense here and in failoverFramework(). I will do that in a 
subsequent review. Added a TODO. Is that ok?


> On March 21, 2014, 8:46 p.m., Adam B wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, lines 2744-2747
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19542/diff/1/?file=531713#file531713line2744>
> >
> >     Should we be setting framework->active = false; here? I know we're just 
> > moving it into frameworks.completed, but none of those should think that 
> > they're "active".

Based on how we resurrect a completed framework 
(Master::readdCompletedFramework) this seems fine. But I would like to do this 
also in a different review just to avoid doing too many changes in this review. 
Added a TODO.


- Vinod


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19542/#review38179
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 21, 2014, 6:42 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/19542/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 21, 2014, 6:42 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-1135
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1135
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See bug for details.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp 3b28f72be2016997e30649d2b12ed0e8f1a57dd5 
>   src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp 
> 3f4796a0f5ed236d20906ee90e2cf8d30b5e228b 
>   src/tests/master_tests.cpp 42c5a77425209d96f8e7286102a672be50463a40 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19542/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Updated 2 tests to verify the behavior.
> 
> make check
> 
> ./bin/mesos-tests.sh 
> --gtest_filter="*FaultToleranceTest.FrameworkReregister*:*MasterInfoOnReElection*"
>  --gtest_repeat=1000 --gtest_break_on_failure
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>

Reply via email to