----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#review55092 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment95455> Indentation of "<<". src/slave/slave.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment95469> See my comment for this section of code in earlier review. AFAICT, it's not addressed. src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment95457> s/whenToKill/_runTask/ that way it's immediately apparent for someone reading line #1080 what this future represents. src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment95459> We format DoAll like this. DoAll(arg1, arg2, arg3) src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment95467> s/killed/killTask/ src/tests/slave_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#comment95460> ditto. formatting. also, this expectation should be set after driver.launchTasks(). - Vinod Kone On Sept. 18, 2014, 1:47 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 18, 2014, 1:47 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos. > > > Bugs: MESOS-947 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-947 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Fixes MESOS-947 "Slave should properly handle a killTask() that arrives > between runTask() and _runTask()". > > Slave::killTask() did not check for task in question combination to be > "pending" (i.e. Slave::runTask had happened, but Slave::_runTask had not yet) > and then erroneously assumed that Slave::runTask() had not been executed. The > task was then marked "LOST" instead of "KILLED". But Slave::runTask had > already scheduled Slave::_runTask to follow. Now the entry for being > "pending" is removed, and the task is marked "KILLED", and _runTask gets > informed about this. It checks whether the task in question is currently > "pending" and if it is not, then it infers that the task has been killed and > does not erroneously try to complete launching it. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.hpp 4f3df5c49a8cf72fc7153158c9eb045196b6cf13 > src/slave/slave.cpp 28eb02852ddcc10efe589a8069dba9c895bc160e > src/tests/mesos.hpp 957e2233cc11c438fd80d3b6d1907a1223093104 > src/tests/mesos.cpp 3dcb2acd5ad4ab5e3a7b4fe524ee077558112773 > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp 69be28f6e82b99e23424bd2be8294f715d8040d4 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Wrote a unit test that reliably created the situation described in the > ticket. Observed that TASK_LOST and the listed log output occurred. This > pointed directly to the lines in killTask() where the problem is rooted. Ran > the test after fixing, it succeeded. Checked the log. It looks like a "clean > kill" now :-) > > > Thanks, > > Bernd Mathiske > >
