> On June 18, 2015, 5:21 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1418-1420
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/5/?file=986979#file986979line1418>
> >
> >     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.

+1 I think we have to do this add this if block.


- Jie


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review88405
-----------------------------------------------------------


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
> 
>

Reply via email to