-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#review131356
-----------------------------------------------------------




3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (line 89)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195282>

    The initialization with `INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE` has no semantic meaning, 
right? We should just leave it uninitialized, since we initialize it with the 
`duplicateHandle` call.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (lines 102 - 106)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195280>

    No need for `else`:
    
    ```cpp
      if (!result) {
        return WindowsError("Failed to duplicate handle of stdin file");
      }
      
      return duplicate;
    ```



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (lines 128 - 132)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195297>

    No need for `else`:
    
    ```cpp
      if (handle == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) {
        return WindowsError("Failed to get `HANDLE` for file descriptor");
      }
      
      return handle;
    ```



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (line 190)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195298>

    `read/only` -> `read-only`



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (lines 199 - 200)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195299>

    Is this because using `GENERIC_WRITE` with `FILE_SHARE_READ` is a no-op?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (lines 300 - 302)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195302>

    We seem to list `in`, `out`, `err` in that order. Should do the same here.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (line 414)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195307>

    Remove newline.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (line 568)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195309>

    `s/thecode/the code/`



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (line 583)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195303>

    `s/stdoutfds.read/stderrfds.read/`



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp (line 590)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/#comment195306>

    Why not use a `unique_ptr` or `Owned` here?


- Michael Park


On April 23, 2016, 11:41 p.m., Alex Clemmer wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 23, 2016, 11:41 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alex Naparu, Daniel Pravat, Artem Harutyunyan, 
> Joris Van Remoortere, Michael Park, M Lawindi, and Yi Sun.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3637
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3637
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Libprocess: Implemented `subprocess_windows.cpp`.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess_windows.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46608/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex Clemmer
> 
>

Reply via email to