> On Aug. 28, 2015, 7:56 a.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/docker/token_manager.cpp, line 223
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37427/diff/14/?file=1057180#file1057180line223>
> >
> >     If you put the cache here in TokenManager instead of 
> > TokenManagerProcess then you'll going to be concurrent access of all the 
> > fields since it's not serialized by libprocess.
> >     
> >     I think tokenCache_ will have undefined behavior  when you run 
> > at/contains while it's being inserted  or deleted then.
> >     
> >     I suggest you move all this into the process instead.

Here the getToken is called in the context of a "dispatch" from RegistryClient. 
Do we still need another dispatch?


- Jojy


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37427/#review96841
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 28, 2015, 4:27 a.m., Jojy Varghese wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37427/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 4:27 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Lily Chen, Joris Van Remoortere, and Timothy Chen.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changes:
>   - Added Token implementation (RFC 7519).
>   - Added TokenManager implementation. This component keeps a cache of tokens
>   requested for any future requests.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am 7b620ff66856b3f0adac121b3297d55ed71a3d99 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/docker/token_manager.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/provisioners/docker/token_manager.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/tests/provisioners/docker_provisioner_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37427/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jojy Varghese
> 
>

Reply via email to