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