> On March 17, 2017, 10:44 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/launcher/default_executor.cpp
> > Line 910 (original), 921 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56215/diff/6/?file=1666160#file1666160line923>
> >
> >     is this safe because before `taskHealthUpdated` is called we would've 
> > already sent a TASK_RUNNING update?

Yes, we always send a TASK_RUNNING before even starting a healh check.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56215/#review169271
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 16, 2017, 4:45 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/56215/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 16, 2017, 4:45 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gastón Kleiman and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7249
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7249
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Sometimes when a new task status update is generated in the executor,
> we have to make sure specific data is duplicated from the previous
> task status to, e.g., avoid shadowing of these data during
> reconciliation. For instance, consider a check status being sent;
> in this status update we must include the latest known health
> information.
> 
> This patch also refactors `update()` routine into two separate calls:
> `createTaskStatus()` which is responsible for creating a task status
> from scratch and `forward()`, which is responsible for forwarding task
> status updates to the agent.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/launcher/default_executor.cpp cbd4f7ecd042e7fa603bd69774d95472df2c896d 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56215/diff/6/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> See https://reviews.apache.org/r/56218/
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>

Reply via email to