----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47258/#review134826 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp (lines 90 - 91) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/47258/#comment199746> Is this a guard as opposed to a `CHECK` because someone is using this API correctly and we are mitigating the performance impact of that? We could argue that it shouldn't be a `CHECK` because it's not an internal variant; however, I would like to know if there's a higher level bug we should be fixing :-) - Joris Van Remoortere On May 19, 2016, 6:27 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/47258/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 19, 2016, 6:27 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Dario Rexin and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Bugs: MESOS-5279 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5279 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Make sure 'activate' is a no-op if the client is already active. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp > 4306973277b9d32356eed31ceabac09fb2a03e6c > src/master/allocator/sorter/sorter.hpp > 9e04adf54f2d80541a95f0a9a49b329dc9e8f5e3 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47258/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check. > > > Thanks, > > Jiang Yan Xu > >
