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