> On April 29, 2013, 7:07 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp, lines 806-813
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/3/?file=285678#file285678line806>
> >
> >     Can you add a little more context to the logging?
> >     
> >     "Failed to monitor " << pid << ": " << status.isDiscarded() ? 
> > "discarded" : status.failure();
> >     
> >     With the ternary you can catch both cases:
> >     if (!status.ready()) {
> >       ...
> >     }

This is again unfortunately done in a later commit. Sometimes the review on 
these lines came at a later review just got corrected in that review... I does 
make things untidy I'll make bigger effort on this in the future.

Fixed at: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10747


> On April 29, 2013, 7:07 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/process_isolator.cpp, lines 465-472
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/3/?file=285680#file285680line465>
> >
> >     Ditto

Ditto, see above.


> On April 29, 2013, 7:07 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp, lines 184-186
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/3/?file=285683#file285683line184>
> >
> >     no need to store it in a variable..?
> >     
> >     ASSERT_TRUE(WIFSIGNALED(status.get()));
> >     ASSERT_EQ(SIGKILL, WTERMSIG(status.get()));

Not using a tmp var causes an error...


> On April 29, 2013, 7:07 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp, line 99
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/3/?file=285683#file285683line99>
> >
> >     Kill this comment, since the spawn'ing happens under the hood now :)

Done.


> On April 29, 2013, 7:07 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp, line 209
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/3/?file=285683#file285683line209>
> >
> >     Kill this comment since the spawn is internal.

Done


> On April 29, 2013, 7:07 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp, line 215
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/3/?file=285683#file285683line215>
> >
> >     newline

Done


> On April 29, 2013, 7:07 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.cpp, lines 67-68
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/3/?file=285682#file285682line67>
> >
> >     So if the process does not exist, you'll set up the promise here and it 
> > will later become ready when the reap() occurs?
> >     
> >     Seems that you want to directly return either:
> >       -An empty Option (-1 in this review), or
> >       -A failure
> >     
> >     Thoughts?

Yes I am doing what your first line says.

We surely can return directly but after we discussed it, probably not a failure 
because it's then harder to distinguish the two error cases: "process doesn't 
exist / has exited" and "we don't have permission && process not a child". 

We can return a None() (as in "dictionary get() returns null when the key 
doesn't exist"). The initial concern was code duplication (logging) but I guess 
it's better to be more explicit. Either way it probably doesn't hurt 
performance much.


- Jiang Yan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/#review19881
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 29, 2013, 7:31 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 29, 2013, 7:31 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> - Previously the listener was notified when its child processes terminate 
> whether it register them or not. 
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/cgroups_isolator.hpp f8fabc4e1c3c303b35a76db96b4b2479bd7c8ff8 
>   src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4 
>   src/slave/process_isolator.hpp 9875f4a6e8e109e31ad390fbd7a84d03ad747190 
>   src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6 
>   src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90 
>   src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3 
>   src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3 
>   src/tests/utils.hpp ca3ecd7f0cab283327bf83e57d4b405b4ada9c74 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu
> 
>

Reply via email to