----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39490/#review104183 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/containerizer/isolators/network/port_mapping.cpp (line 2431) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39490/#comment162473> Why is this no longer a failure? src/slave/containerizer/isolators/network/port_mapping.cpp (line 2450) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39490/#comment162474> ditto? - Ian Downes On Oct. 20, 2015, 11:57 a.m., Cong Wang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39490/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 20, 2015, 11:57 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ian Downes and Jie Yu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > When rolling out the new flag --egress_unique_flow_per_container, I noticed, > on some slaves, only IP egress filters were created as expected, the reset > were not. Looking at the code, it looks like we skipped the creation if this > is not the first container we create, this is wrong for this case, because > egress filters were not created for previous containers yet. We should always > create them and ignore error if they exist. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/containerizer/isolators/network/port_mapping.cpp > e6bb75e6f5ba48a0c4cf6dd8f353e5f5843d0eef > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39490/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Manual tests > > > Thanks, > > Cong Wang > >
