> On May 28, 2014, 9:45 p.m., Adam B wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp, lines 715-717 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/21961/diff/1/?file=597180#file597180line715> > > > > Note that we are now removing the (non-checkpointing) frameworks after > > removing/rescinding the offers, rather than the other way around. I think > > this should be fine, since that slave is already disabled in the allocator, > > so no new offers will be made in the meantime. > > Since both removeFramework() and disconnect(Slave) remove offers, it > > shouldn't matter which one tries first.
I didn't understand your comments Adam: it looks like removeFramework(Slave*, Framework*) *does not* remove the offers, it does however recover resources from the tasks / executors. So there is no double removal of offers FWICT. - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21961/#review44180 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 28, 2014, 2:14 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/21961/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 28, 2014, 2:14 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam Berry, Benjamin Hindman, and Ben Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-1418 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1418 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.hpp f0490ec639d5c1f73ee5754bcca445daa9499caf > src/master/master.cpp 21472e94658be6e31f13eacc5412144d62b12096 > src/tests/fault_tolerance_tests.cpp > 3f2639347c7fde1b1b8e3c976e493b5fa2c3ade2 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21961/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
