----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/#review178836 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/master/validation.cpp Line 370 (original), 370-372 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/#comment253088> Even if we can't `validateDynamicReservationInfo` (or `validateDiskInfo`?), would it be worthwhile to `validateGpus`? Maybe clone/parameterize `resource::validate` to validate what we can? - Adam B On June 23, 2017, 6:48 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 23, 2017, 6:48 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B and Michael Park. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > When validating the agent's ReregisterSlaveMessage, the master's > validation code neglected to account for the fact that the task > resources might not be in post-refinement format (e.g., if the agent > does not support reservation refinement). This lead to a `CHECK` failure > during validation. > > Fix this by relaxing the validation of ReregisterSlaveMessage so that we > do not depend on the task resources being in post-refinement > format. This means validation of ReregisterSlaveMessage will be less > effective, but since it is best-effort anyway, this seems tolerable. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/validation.cpp 33e9ff7db9e2789cbb2d6dfd015288dfa1faa7c5 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
