----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/#review12025 -----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks jie, this was my fault. I did the big Try<Nothing> refactor and didn't realize that you didn't want to call the os:: recursive functions. Can you provide background on why this breaks the tests? third_party/libprocess/include/stout/os.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/#comment25643> I find it surprising that we had mkdir behaving as mkdir -p. I think mkdirp makes more sense, but changing that is yet another big refactor, so maybe add a TODO. For now, I think you could just leave os::mkdir as is, and do ::mkdir in your cgroups code as before, since the note you added clears things up. third_party/libprocess/include/stout/os.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/#comment25644> I like your note above about "NOT deleting recursively", and I think this case is special enough for you to use ::rmdir inline in the cgroups code rather adding the flag here. I missed it in the refactor since I wasn't sure why you used ::rmdir instead of os::rmdir, but the notes you added will make sure no one else makes this mistake :) - Ben Mahler On Sept. 28, 2012, 5:33 a.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 28, 2012, 5:33 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Benjamin Hindman. > > > Description > ------- > > The recent refactor changes break the assumptions in the cgroups code. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/linux/cgroups.cpp cdafe6e > third_party/libprocess/include/stout/os.hpp 13dbc71 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7338/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check. > > Tested on my vm (latest ubuntu 12.04) > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
