-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52412/#review152251
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp (lines 1331 - 1332)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/52412/#comment221149>

    This comment should be removed/updated.



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp (lines 1336 - 1337)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/52412/#comment221151>

    Top-level parent container case.
    
    s/alwasy/always/



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp (lines 1349 - 1352)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/52412/#comment221154>

    It'd be better to omit this TODO, or move it into `container_logger.hpp`


- Joseph Wu


On Oct. 11, 2016, 5:09 p.m., Gilbert Song wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52412/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 11, 2016, 5:09 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Artem Harutyunyan, Jie Yu, Joris Van Remoortere, 
> and Joseph Wu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6290
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6290
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Currently, there is an issue in mesos containerizer using logger
> for nested contaienrs:
> 
> An empty executorinfo is passed to logger when launching a nested
> container, it would potentially break some logger modules if any
> module tries to access the required proto field (e.g., executorId).
> 
> We should pass the ExecutorInfo of a nested container's top level
> parent container to the logger when launching a nested container.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> 32058c35ea9ca95f0a2665994c1ebccd5c840345 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52412/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gilbert Song
> 
>

Reply via email to