-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39429/#review103095
-----------------------------------------------------------


Bad patch!

Reviews applied: [39428, 39429]

Failed command: ./support/apply-review.sh -n -r 39429

Error:
 2015-10-19 04:39:57 URL:https://reviews.apache.org/r/39429/diff/raw/ 
[9602/9602] -> "39429.patch" [1]
error: patch failed: 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp:21
error: 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp: patch does not apply
Failed to apply patch

- Mesos ReviewBot


On Oct. 19, 2015, 4:20 a.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39429/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 19, 2015, 4:20 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3326
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3326
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See MESOS-3326. We adopted std::atomic in most of the code base earlier 
> (commits
> 87de003c6e8a, 4b938052b6af, and 4a01850c5540), but a few places were omitted;
> those locations are fixed by this commit.
> 
> There's one last place to fix: we use the GCC intrinsic __sync_synchronize() 
> in
> 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/logging.h. Because that is used to protect
> modifications to the FLAGS_v variable defined by glog, we can't easily adapt 
> it
> to use std::atomic.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/owned.hpp 
> bc5b527152c8864544ad58070c0bfc81639056da 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/shared.hpp 
> 021807b961bb55f11c9e04327135bd83f4d86c21 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp 
> e5277de5b5bdea4a44606cda7fbf69a559aeebbe 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39429/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to