-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/#review98209
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Thanks for cleaning this all up Neil!

Let's add some style-guide info or reference the google style-guide if your 
changes are already covered.
A few concise examples would be great.


3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/fork.hpp (line 278)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/#comment154504>

    Some places in this review chain you use the provided typedefs 
`std::atomic_XXX`, whereas elsewhere you provide the explicit specialization 
`std::atomic<int64_t>`.
    
    Can you put a review at the front of this chain to provide guidance for 
consistency in the style guide regarding atomics? I would add examples and 
policies for:
    1. Always using the explicit specializations; or when to use the typedef 
over the explicit (if you have a good argument for that)
    2. Why we use the explicit functions such as `store(X)` as opposed to the 
`operator=` as we discussed in person.
    
    Once that's done, please make any changes required in the chain to stay 
consistent.


- Joris Van Remoortere


On Sept. 9, 2015, 4:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 9, 2015, 4:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and switched to 'mcypark'.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3326
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3326
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> MESOS-3326.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/fork.hpp 
> d43433aeab5a1a68ff76eb75416672fae456c70d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to