----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/#review11957 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/detector/detector.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/#comment25489> Took a the trip down memory lane - Option = handles the memory leak src/detector/detector.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/#comment25490> Any reason not to call expired() instead? src/detector/detector.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/#comment25491> prematurely src/detector/detector.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/#comment25494> timer needs to be cancelled and set to none so that we don't double expire here on a pending timeout. src/detector/detector.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/#comment25493> expired = true; src/detector/detector.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/#comment25492> Why not directly expire() here instead of marking state and then waiting for connected() before finally expire()ing ? - John Sirois On Sept. 26, 2012, 6:01 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 26, 2012, 6:01 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, John Sirois, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > See summary (7 of 7). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/detector/detector.cpp 0246846 > third_party/libprocess/include/process/delay.hpp cb2fa9a > third_party/libprocess/include/process/timer.hpp 333a806 > third_party/libprocess/src/process.cpp fde7154 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7295/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Hindman > >
