> On Oct. 23, 2014, 12:54 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1270-1273 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/diff/13/?file=724332#file724332line1270> > > > > Hey Bernd and Vinod, coverity just reported this, looks like it's now > > dead code! > > > > Can you follow up?
Coverty is correct. I believe we can remove this code and the subsequent line as well. According to how I understand it (given Vinod's reviews), the framework must still exist as long as any pending task exists. It follows that this code must have already been de facto dead before, because the patch for MESOS-947 does not change when a framework gets instantiated. It just reclaims it more eagerly. - Bernd ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/#review58074 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 17, 2014, 9:25 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23912/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 17, 2014, 9:25 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone. > > > 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 342b09fc084c20d98d096bb129830440179c092c > src/slave/slave.cpp 0e342ed35e3db3b68f9f32b6cf4ace23e4a4db38 > src/tests/mesos.hpp 957e2233cc11c438fd80d3b6d1907a1223093104 > src/tests/mesos.cpp 3dcb2acd5ad4ab5e3a7b4fe524ee077558112773 > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp f585bdd20ae1af466f2c1b4d85331ac67451552f > > 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 > >
