-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/51963/#review149287
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/namespaces/pid.cpp (lines 76 - 78)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/51963/#comment216851>

    Can we move this comment up to the point where we do the check for the 
linux filesystem isolator in `create()`. Otherwise, it's not clear when reading 
through create, why we need this.


- Kevin Klues


On Sept. 16, 2016, 7:20 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/51963/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 16, 2016, 7:20 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Gilbert Song, Joseph Wu, and 
> Kevin Klues.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6145
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6145
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The bind mounts in the pid namespace isolator turns out to be
> unnecessary as the linux launcher will use freezer to kill all tasks
> anyway. It makes the isolator unnecessarily complex, and has a mount
> leak bug (MESOS-6145). This patch removes all the unnecessary bind
> mounts, making the isolator extremely simple.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/namespaces/pid.hpp 
> 1c74ba2561c113c4611577c541b2baed13717ece 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/namespaces/pid.cpp 
> b41e2665e4c9089da55b38aa5d0bedbc1a60e6a8 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/linux_launcher.cpp 
> d0f92856780f087908731ec0601692c78339d8a7 
>   src/tests/containerizer/isolator_tests.cpp 
> 9bb1e69209f34b18b5b64c3daf5ea26780f2ab74 
>   src/tests/slave_recovery_tests.cpp 389daf0f5af9a2786619312253f78cd9160b080b 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51963/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jie Yu
> 
>

Reply via email to