-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review87857
-----------------------------------------------------------


Just so I understand, does this mean if we happen to get in the unfortunate 
situation where a slave has neglected to get the dynamic reservation because it 
was just starting up and then it gets the task launch it will shutdown the 
slave because the CHECK will fail? I would expect the slave to simply send a 
TASK_LOST. Said another way, this is not an assertion our code guarantees. If 
instead we were waiting for some kind of an ack from the slave that it received 
the dynamic reservation before it send the task launch then a CHECK would make 
sense.

- Benjamin Hindman


On June 13, 2015, 9:43 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 13, 2015, 9:43 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> No bug was observed (yet), but realized I forgot about this in the dynamic 
> reservations patches.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 9af69d8f0b28c9441c684886c52320378f9b2869 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Reply via email to