----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
