> On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 1230 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line1230> > > > > How can the slave be in RECOVERING state here? > > > > Also, do we want to proceed if slave is in TERMINATING state?
That was from the check in the upper-half. I copied the handlers for RECOVERING and TERMINATING states in _killTask in the recent patch. > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1069-1070 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line1069> > > > > What guarantees that the executor is not removed when we are here? Add > > a comment. Should be replaced with soft test and abort - done in most recent review. > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1239-1240 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line1239> > > > > What guarantees that the executor won't be removed? Add a comment. Should be replaced with soft test and abort - done in most recent review. > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 1236 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line1236> > > > > Do we want to proceed if framework is TERMINATING? The handler of the terminating state from killTask is now also in _killTask: we log and abort. > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1704-1705 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line1704> > > > > Again what's the guarantee? Comment please. Should be replaced with soft test and abort - done in most recent review. > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1891-1892 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line1891> > > > > What's the guarantee. Comment. Should be replaced with soft test and abort - done in most recent review. > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1021-1022 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line1021> > > > > Can you add a comment here saying the framework couldn't have been > > removed because it has a pending task? Replaced with soft test and abort in recent review. > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 3505 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line3505> > > > > why false? At that point, we don't know whether it is a command executor or not. Should we have a default parameter value or perhaps have the command executor bool as an option type? > On April 17, 2014, 1:02 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 3334-3336 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/8/?file=561617#file561617line3334> > > > > Remove this? What happens when containerizer returns a future? If so, we would have to move the following code (which copies the task resources into the executor resources) into the mesos_containerizer. I am doing that already in the subsequent review, but would you like to see it done here? - Niklas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/#review40676 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 18, 2014, 2:46 p.m., Niklas Nielsen wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 18, 2014, 2:46 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ian Downes and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-922 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-922 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > This is the 2nd part of the task-info patch split > (https://reviews.apache.org/r/18403/) and changes Executor::info to an > executor info future. > This is motivated by delegating executor info creation/choice to the > containerizer to address new container/executor scenarios > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-922). > > This patch use the new Executor::info and introduces new continuations to > deal with launching containers i.e. executor infos are to be determined. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/http.cpp 70e409a > src/slave/slave.hpp 438e5b5 > src/slave/slave.cpp b3c4285 > src/tests/containerizer.cpp 2599727 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19795/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Niklas Nielsen > >
