> On Jan. 29, 2017, 8:02 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 1257-1261 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/diff/1/?file=1613177#file1613177line1257> > > > > We talked about how this condition probably isn't necessary since we > > set the `AllocationInfo` in > > `Offer::Operation`s in the master (and redundantly in the allocator). > > > > Please let me know how that turned out!
I can remove this one since we do the injection at the call-sites. For now I'll leave in the second case but put a TODO to consider call-sites performing the stripping of allocation info when necessary. > On Jan. 29, 2017, 8:02 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/common/resources.cpp, line 1339 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/diff/1/?file=1613177#file1613177line1339> > > > > Shouldn't we print `unreserved` as opposed to `adjustedReservation` > > here? If we were to print the pre-adjusted resource the error seems weird because it will never contain the resource. I think we'll move towards removing adjustment entirely from `Resources::apply()` and having call-site adjust (either inject or strip). I put a TODO for this. - Benjamin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/#review163320 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 23, 2017, 10:47 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 23, 2017, 10:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Jay Guo, Guangya Liu, and Michael > Park. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6967 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6967 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Previously, `Resource` did not contain `AllocationInfo`. So for > backwards compatibility with old schedulers and tooling, we must > allow operations to contain `Resource`s without an allocation role. > The two interesting cases for adjusting the operation's resource are: > > (1) The operation `Resource` does not contain an `AllocationInfo` > but is being applied to an allocated `Resources`. We allow this > only if the operation is unambiguous, that is, the allocated > `Resources` are only allocated to a single role. > > (2) The operation `Resource` contains an `AllocationInfo` but is > being applied to an unallocated `Resources`. In this case we > simply ignore the `AllocationInfo` of the `Resource`. > > Note that we assume no `Resources` store a mix of allocated and > unallocated resources. This is a brittle assumption that we should > have enforcement for. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/resources.cpp be9bca2063e9f0e60c5faa0142077bea56272e45 > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 8dfb1be35d9f9c6ff69139d055c6b3d3ec475e68 > src/tests/resources_utils.hpp 18dcca7f171102df8fe88f10785f70c5d1cf5b32 > src/v1/resources.cpp da4701c03020ff9c33ef995cd0af437d8827c267 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55828/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Added a test. > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Mahler > >
