> On May 16, 2014, 7:19 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > I will defer to Niklas for a more thorough review that I can offer right 
> > now.
> > 
> > Thanks for following up Till. I would love to see more tests for this code!

Yes, tests for the EC currently are my top priority - work in progress.


> On May 16, 2014, 7:19 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/external_containerizer.cpp, line 836
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/diff/2/?file=583558#file583558line836>
> >
> >     What does according to the internal states mean?

It means that the EC does not have any knowledge on such container ever being 
launched - usually an indicator for an orphan, as discussed before.

Your comment hints that I should rephrase.

How about:
LOG(WARNING) << "Container '" << containerId << "' not running according to the 
slave states."; ?


- Till


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/#review43244
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 16, 2014, 7:20 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 16, 2014, 7:20 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Niklas Nielsen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-1364
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1364
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> An orphaned container is known to the ECP but not to the EC, thus not 
> recoverable but pending. This patch enforces a call to destroy for any orphan 
> that has been identified as such during the recovery phase.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/external_containerizer.hpp afffff1 
>   src/slave/containerizer/external_containerizer.cpp 2ff19b1 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (note that the tests currently do not cover this scenario)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Till Toenshoff
> 
>

Reply via email to