> On June 3, 2013, 6:55 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp, line 320
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/11126/diff/4/?file=300088#file300088line320>
> >
> >     we use camelcase for variables.
> >     
> >     also, why not just call it 'exists'?

I was trying to avoid ambiguity with the 'exists' just above.


> On June 3, 2013, 6:55 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp, lines 342-348
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/11126/diff/4/?file=300088#file300088line342>
> >
> >     why not kill the oddly sandwiched 'remove' inside the if loop and just 
> > always do remove here. IOW,
> >     
> >     if (exists) {
> >       create()
> >     }
> >     
> >      remove()

I suppose that's okay if we don't care about providing some guarantee that the 
test cgroup is removed.


- Brenden


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/11126/#review21350
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 3, 2013, 6:49 p.m., Brenden Matthews wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11126/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 3, 2013, 6:49 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Make sure you clean up the cgroups test.
> 
> Sometimes the cgroup test fails because the directory is already there.
> This should ensure that it gets cleanup up in that case before we exit.
> 
> We'll also check that it exists before we try creating it.  If it
> already exists, we'll skip the creation.
> 
> Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11126
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 9b3a3a5dfec27a119fdd47a88f016e21470eb88d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11126/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Used in production at airbnb.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brenden Matthews
> 
>

Reply via email to