-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review88513
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Want to link the RR with MESOS-2491 for posterity?


src/slave/slave.cpp (line 1399)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141093>

    I believe you've chosen `TASK_LOST` because the appropriate 
`CheckpointResourcesMessage` is about to arrive and restarting the task may 
succeed. If this is the case, let's expand the comment.



src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1409 - 1416)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141095>

    Let's add `TaskStatus::Reason` for that! How about 
`REASON_RESOURCES_UNKNOWN`? I'm ok with doing it in a separate RR in order not 
to block this patch.



src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 1420 - 1422)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141094>

    I've seen your discussion about these lines and that you plan to follow-up 
on this. In the meantime, mind throwing a comment, why do we need to remove the 
framework here? (I believe it is because we could have created it one step 
before in `runTask()`, right?)



src/slave/slave.cpp (line 1446)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#comment141096>

    Ditto.


- Alexander Rukletsov


On June 19, 2015, 12:42 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 19, 2015, 12:42 a.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