-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34426/#review86493
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!



src/linux/routing/queueing/internal.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34426/#comment138537>

    I would probably just use 'size_t' here:
    
    ```
    for (size_t i = 0; i < (size_t) RTNL_TC_STATS_MAX; i++) {
      ...
    }
    ```



src/linux/routing/queueing/internal.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34426/#comment138539>

    Why <=?



src/linux/routing/queueing/statistics.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34426/#comment138540>

    Should we get rid of 'queueing' here because this can be used by filters as 
well?


- Jie Yu


On June 3, 2015, 9:19 p.m., Paul Brett wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34426/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 3, 2015, 9:19 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chi Zhang, Ian Downes, Jie Yu, and Cong Wang.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2665
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2665
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Report the network statistics from libnl
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am 66030c4b211ea61e97e62c35ec1821e0958f9787 
>   src/linux/routing/queueing/fq_codel.hpp 
> 49c8df626addcfc841132f821b8697b5e6e3b341 
>   src/linux/routing/queueing/fq_codel.cpp 
> 976c6a7a11d39609e6597daeb1a74c93ac62e4bf 
>   src/linux/routing/queueing/ingress.hpp 
> 2b7e1d3d1c02120195b6697320fb46f085a1ef92 
>   src/linux/routing/queueing/ingress.cpp 
> e96f547200dc4ad5b2e33fd1ffbd7fb92b955a46 
>   src/linux/routing/queueing/internal.hpp 
> 3713f6a4d3f9a44b142b8150e85cf911e53e34e9 
>   src/linux/routing/queueing/statistics.hpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34426/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul Brett
> 
>

Reply via email to