-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37424/#review95606
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/linux/perf.cpp (line 199)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37424/#comment150681>

    We may want to update this to become killtree in a separate patch? Or are 
we guaranteed that perf will clean up child processes? If so, that warrants a 
comment :)



src/linux/perf.cpp (lines 304 - 312)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37424/#comment150679>

    How about we just use the discard semantics that are already set up inside 
initialize()? If a discard is requested, we will terminate.
    
    This leaves the composition in the caller, which we usually prefer (rather 
than pushing in timeout logic to all libraries, it's easier to provide discard 
semantics and have the caller discard when it's no longer interested).
    
    So the idea here is now your callers use a .after() which does a discard().


- Ben Mahler


On Aug. 13, 2015, 12:29 a.m., Paul Brett wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37424/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 13, 2015, 12:29 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Timeout the perf future if the process does not complete.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/linux/perf.cpp cb1a13d0b1754a50f0121bfda522056ff8c3e3c8 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37424/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> sudo make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul Brett
> 
>

Reply via email to