> On Nov. 26, 2015, 3:14 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > src/common/resources.cpp, line 951 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40730/diff/1/?file=1147236#file1147236line951> > > > > This definitely needs an explanatory comment. > > Bernd Mathiske wrote: > I'll propose a patch that addresses these issues.
What if results or cpus returns isNone or one of them is isNone ( Option ) , then get() is going to crash. CHECK_NEAR() does the same thing as the previous review request and this is the history of previous review request : "CHECK_DOUBLE_EQ will also fail. F0930 18:15:38.169140 26984 resources.cpp:874] Check failed: (result.cpus().get()) >= (cpus().get())-0.000000000000001L (24 vs. 24) Check failure stack trace: F0930 18:15:38.169322 26991 resources.cpp:874] Check failed: (result.cpus().get()) >= (cpus().get())-0.000000000000001L (24 vs. 24) Check failure stack trace: CHECK_NEAR() is the right Macro to use. But we also need to check (isNone() and isNone()) equality and hence the present implementation. I think the long term fix is to wrap double into Double and have the opeartor== to the right thing. " Using CHECK_NEAR() is fine but not checking other state of Option<> may lead to crash and is not complete. - Mandeep ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40730/#review108140 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 26, 2015, 6:52 a.m., Avinash sridharan wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/40730/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 26, 2015, 6:52 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske, Klaus Ma, and Neil Conway. > > > Bugs: MESOS-3552 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3552 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > A version of this fix was already proposed by Mandeep Chadha (@mchadha) and > submitted to the reivew board https://reviews.apache.org/r/39056/ . So the > main credit should go to him for this fix. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/resources.cpp b4abf5405039d7d0a5028ccf034ad2e9623d064c > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40730/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Added Mandeep's test case to GTEST https://reviews.apache.org/r/39056/ and > enabled an existing precision test (https://reviews.apache.org/r/40732/) to > test this fix. > > > Thanks, > > Avinash sridharan > >
