----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review88405 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1418 - 1420) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment140914> The only logic question I have here now is how come we don't need the following code even though we use it above? if (framework->executors.empty() && framework->pending.empty()) { removeFramework(framework); } If there is some condition that keeps us from having to do this it would be great to capture it as a CHECK. It's not obvious here otherwise. And if we are removing the framework, then it looks like we'll have the same potential issue that Vinod's TODO captures above. Easiest thing to do here is capture as a comment why this "return" path differs. - Benjamin Hindman On June 18, 2015, 5:05 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 18, 2015, 5:05 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, 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 a5ad29f59fadba919ed82ba2892c2febe551660b > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
