> On Jan. 18, 2017, 1:06 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp, line 1328
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55024/diff/2/?file=1605541#file1605541line1328>
> >
> >     At the moment, I would not expect this to ever fail, 
> > `EXIT(EXIT_FAILURE)` is preferable.  If it does, it seems like a severe 
> > enough error (as the docs suggest most errors are due to programmer error).
> >     
> >     See: 
> > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms741549(v=vs.85).aspx

The reason I decided to `LOG(ERROR)` is because there didn't seem to be any 
scenarios where we would encounter errors because we haven't shut down the 
socket stack. We can change it if you feel strongly about it, though. Do you 
think there is a strong possibility of an error condition that I'm missing?


- Alex


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/55024/#review162008
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 15, 2017, 8:46 a.m., Alex Clemmer wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/55024/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 15, 2017, 8:46 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrew Schwartzmeyer, Daniel Pravat, John Kordich, 
> and Joseph Wu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Currently libprocess will attempt to use sockets without initializing
> the socket stack on Windows. This commit will resolving this problem by
> causing `process::initialize` to initialize the socket stack.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/process.hpp 
> b118f1a2bf5aac12b53ae204253b88c9b1c65f46 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 
> f475fe78f801924f70f51fdc4ab190c2dbecd656 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55024/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex Clemmer
> 
>

Reply via email to