> On Sept. 28, 2017, 12:07 a.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp
> > Line 527 (original), 594 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/62594/diff/1/?file=1836051#file1836051line623>
> >
> >     Hmmm... is this CHECK correct? Since this continuation is registered as 
> > an `onAny` callback, couldn't the future be in DISCARDED state? You do 
> > handle the discarded case in your new continuation.
> 
> Till Toenshoff wrote:
>     We do need to validate how this invariant is guaranteed.

Interesting point you raise here, moreover because the same argument could be 
done before Till's patches (If I understand the old code right). I wonder how 
did anand ensure that the future won't be discarded. My only assumption is that 
the future is not hold by anybody before the continuation call nor afterwards.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/62594/#review186483
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 2, 2017, 12:29 p.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/62594/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 2, 2017, 12:29 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar, Armand Grillet, Benjamin Bannier, 
> Greg Mann, Kapil Arya, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8021
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8021
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Updated scheduler library for modularized HTTP authenticatee use.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/scheduler/flags.hpp 1e8efc06b40b17d6fa9d9516a83893485804fc72 
>   src/scheduler/scheduler.cpp 78f53707364ab988bcc53ec2c95490df04cd9a6c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62594/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Integration test in external project. Further tests upcoming.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Till Toenshoff
> 
>

Reply via email to