-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52864/#review153580
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!





src/health-check/health_checker.cpp (line 215)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/52864/#comment222984>

    Seems like you might want a small comment here about how we assume this is 
a local send? i.e. the health checker library is not used in a binary external 
to the executor that exits after the promise is failed?
    
    If we were to also update send to become satisfying a promise, then we 
wouldn't need this comment.


- Benjamin Mahler


On Oct. 14, 2016, 12:35 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52864/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 14, 2016, 12:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gastón Kleiman and haosdent huang.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> After we have refactored the HealthChecker into a library from the
> binary, there is no more need to wait before failing the promise to
> ensure the message has been sent to the executor. HealthChecker
> lifetime is managed by an executor, hence it is their responsibility
> not to clean the instance until after the message with the `kill_task`
> flag is received.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/health-check/health_checker.cpp 
> 96ae1a733ff3d211b84d0893b4603873af1c89f0 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52864/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> See https://reviews.apache.org/r/52873/.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>

Reply via email to