> On Sept. 12, 2017, 11:07 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> > src/launcher/default_executor.cpp
> > Lines 1317-1319 (original), 1333-1337 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/diff/1/?file=1819448#file1819448line1333>
> >
> >     Instead of checking a flag, why not replacing `CHECK` with a condition?

I was assuming this `CHECK` was mostly intended to guard against some weird 
race conditions where this function might be called before `task_id` is 
inserted, even though we expect it to be. So it felt safer to keep the check. I 
don't have a strong opinion on this though, if you prefer I'll replace it.


- Benno


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/#review185157
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 11, 2017, 9:16 a.m., Benno Evers wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 11, 2017, 9:16 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Alexander Rukletsov.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7941
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7941
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This gives schedulers more information about a tasks status,
> in particular it gives a better estimate of a tasks start time
> and helps differentiating between tasks stuck in TASK_STAGING
> and tasks stuck in TASK_STARTING.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   docs/high-availability-framework-guide.md 
> 73743aba31f9d0ca827d318e2ecb4752a91b1be0 
>   src/docker/executor.cpp e9949f652cd8527991ebfdfbf14e68b4c958fe79 
>   src/launcher/default_executor.cpp 106b7f2e0244d211c66b237b5d1c51f43fc6e529 
>   src/launcher/executor.cpp 951597b576b4912541dd87d52dcb981393e58082 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62212/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benno Evers
> 
>

Reply via email to