-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/#review43901
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Modulo a clarifying comment.


src/slave/containerizer/external_containerizer.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/#comment78193>

    This works (ensures task_lost updates are sent) because wait() returns 
immediately in the slave and cause executorTerminated to be called? If so, 
maybe worth a comment :)



src/slave/containerizer/external_containerizer.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/#comment78191>

    collect() returns Future<Nothing> and when we don't do anything with the 
future in the continuation (other than a log message), how about flattening it?


- Niklas Nielsen


On May 23, 2014, 5:14 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 23, 2014, 5:14 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.
> 
> NOTE: Such destroy is wrapped by a call to "wait" to make sure the 
> ExternalContainerizer gets to know when a container was destroyed 
> successfully.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/external_containerizer.hpp 7e5474c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/external_containerizer.cpp ac3dd18 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21424/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check against upcoming SlaveRecoveryTests (enabled locally)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Till Toenshoff
> 
>

Reply via email to