-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60525/#review180013
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!




The change makes sense to me: if the user intent is to set up the longest 
possible duration, the allocator should comply.


src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp
Lines 1048-1049 (original), 1048-1050 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60525/#comment255020>

    We usually use leading spaces instead of trailing spaces, but I see that 
you follow the pattern here. Maybe clean the whole file in a separate patch?



src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp
Lines 1056 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60525/#comment255019>

    Missing blank line?


- Alexander Rukletsov


On July 8, 2017, 12:03 a.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/60525/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 8, 2017, 12:03 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Benjamin Mahler, Greg Mann, 
> and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7660
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7660
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> If a framework accepts/refuses an offer using a very long filter, the
> `HierarchicalAllocator` will use the default filter instead. Meaning
> that it will filter the resources for only 5 seconds. This can happen
> when a framework sets `Filter::refuse_seconds` to a number of seconds
> larger than what fits in `Duration`.
> 
> This patch makes the allocator use the largest possible filter duration
> in this case.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/mesos/hierarchical.cpp 
> eb01d8e6b1108866ebc049f9f4a46157823a3541 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60525/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gastón Kleiman
> 
>

Reply via email to