> On July 24, 2014, 6:23 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp, lines 4293-4296
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/22796/diff/7/?file=634636#file634636line4293>
> >
> >     It looks like this NULL case is only possible for the rescind timeout, 
> > since all synchronous calls to removeOffers previously could not hit this 
> > condition.
> >     
> >     What about instead adding a small method for the delay() to invoke:
> >     
> >     void Master::offerTimeout(const OfferID&)
> >     {
> >       Offer* offer = getOffer(offerId);
> >       if (offer != NULL) {
> >         removeOffer(offer, true);
> >       }
> >     }
> >     
> >     This way, we only introduce the NULL case where it's expected and 
> > harmless. It makes it even less critical to remove the timers correctly 
> > since it wouldn't have an impact on the logging.
> >     
> >     The other reason I would suggest this approach is that the contents of 
> > offerTimeout would be a possible candidate for being moved to a C++11 
> > lambda function instead of making a member method.

I added a offerTimeout method, but since the offer object can be deleted I'm 
passing OfferID as value.


- Timothy


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/22796/#review48665
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 24, 2014, 3 a.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/22796/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 24, 2014, 3 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Ben Mahler, and Niklas Nielsen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-186
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-186
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Based on Kapil's patch (https://reviews.apache.org/r/22066/), adding timeout 
> for each offer from master to remove the offer when it's no longer used.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/flags.hpp 32704ce 
>   src/master/master.hpp fa46a67 
>   src/master/master.cpp fb2fd5a 
>   src/tests/master_tests.cpp 5a1cf7f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/22796/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added three more unit tests from Kapil's patch: Testing offer not rescinded 
> after task launched, offer not rescinded when framework/slave unregistered.
> The test exposed a race condition that can lead to a segfault if two remove 
> offers are called on the same offer.
> 
> make check.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Timothy Chen
> 
>

Reply via email to