Re: Review Request: Fixed a bug where we didn't expect a future to get discarded. We saw this in tests likely because the ordering of process termination was causing the isolation module to get cleaned up before the monitor.

[Benjamin Hindman]

> On March 16, 2013, 12:22 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/monitor.cpp, line 198
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/9975/diff/1/?file=271254#file271254line198>
> >
> >     Sounds like futures in continuations should never be CHECKed for 
> > discarded. Rather they should return an error.

Agreed. It's probably worth doing a sweep in another review to take care of 
this.


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9975/#review18022
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 15, 2013, 11:04 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/9975/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 15, 2013, 11:04 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/monitor.cpp 18fbd48f2b9759fc950e43a2c61f3d27119e24c7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9975/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>