-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/28809/#review71279
-----------------------------------------------------------


Looks good! Will take another look when Vinod's comments are addressed.


src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/28809/#comment116951>

    Is it safe to do this once on the combined resources?
    
    ```
    Resources resources = task.resources();
    
    if (task.has_executor()) {
      resources += task.executor().resources();
    }
    
    foreach (const Resource& resource, resources) {
      ...
    }
    ```



src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/28809/#comment116953>

    One line?
    
    ```
      << "Failed to checkpoint resources " << newCheckpointedResources;
    ```



src/slave/slave.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/28809/#comment116955>

    It's too bad the `errors` are just unsigned ints and not a collection of 
`Option<Error>`s that we can print here.


- Ben Mahler


On Feb. 4, 2015, 7:13 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/28809/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 4, 2015, 7:13 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2031
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2031
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Started to maintain and checkpoint persisted resource in slave. That includes:
> 1) responds to update resources message
> 2) checkpoint resources
> 3) recover checkpointed resources
> 4) send checkpointed resources during register/reregister
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp 70bd8c1fde4ea09fa54c76aa93424a1adb0309f6 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp a8b262174ab5c9a524db8318d3d1438cd75a702b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28809/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jie Yu
> 
>

Reply via email to