> On April 19, 2013, 12:05 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, line 739 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10604/diff/3/?file=282489#file282489line739> > > > > Well, if the slave re-registers we won't send TASK_LOST in the master, > > we'll be sending killTask to the slave. But only once I implement the task > > consolidation in the master during re-registration.
adding a TODO, since there is no longer consolidation at the master. - Vinod ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10604/#review19417 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 18, 2013, 11:46 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10604/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 18, 2013, 11:46 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > Refactored runTask() and some other pieces of slave, to make this hopefully > clear. > > Also, sneaked in some bug fixes when executorStarted() is called. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.hpp 54c66863db217077a050dc414caf0976447500be > src/slave/slave.cpp 00b2375505e362959ac34061e3066cf8ace96adf > src/tests/allocator_zookeeper_tests.cpp > 42faaa067bdfa0c7f33260eb5cb3b9e5956c3037 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10604/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check. > > NOTE: GarbageCollectorIntegrationTest.Unschedule test now correctly verifies > that executors/frameworks are properly unscheduled despite adding tasks to > 'pending'. > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
