-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/#review17156
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Looks much cleaner!


src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/#comment36325>

    CHECK_SOME and the message here should maybe say uninitialized instead of 
invalid, now that we don't use -1?



src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/#comment36333>

    do we want to log the status at the end of this message?



src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/#comment36327>

    Much nicer!



src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/#comment36331>

    As a result of this NOTE it sounds like we should kill the sentinel values 
in favor of using Options, not expecting you to do that but maybe a TODO in the 
info struct if not already one present.



src/slave/slave.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/#comment36326>

    thanks!


- Ben Mahler


On Feb. 26, 2013, 12:32 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 26, 2013, 12:32 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.hpp 
> a04fc46b15d2741886f5847cadbdc9bed351c588 
>   src/slave/cgroups_isolation_module.cpp 
> a779de80d13c67e507d7d2ee788fcdaa5e71daca 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp 7648c33230c1900eda7529045c5df9ccab105d47 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 8c2e1bfc363491c681177676f9dfe5f229276f7d 
>   src/tests/balloon_framework_test.sh 
> 93a733f64cfde08349b7781eb3d5e13594c74498 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9408/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vinod Kone
> 
>

Reply via email to