----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#review190444 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 74 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267811> I am not sure such a function is useful in general; maybe consider adding it just as a lambda into `socketpair`. 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 82 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267810> We have no idea at this point which `close` failed. It seems we want to `map` `close` over an iterable of `int_fd`, each possibly creating an `Error`, and then possibly reduce all errors into a single `Error`, e.g., // UNTESTED EXAMPLE. template <size_t N> Try<Nothing> close(const array<int_fd, N>& fds) { // Use stout's `close` to automatically capture errors. auto results = map(&close, fds); std::vector<Error> errors; foreach (auto&& result, results) { if (result.isError()) { errors.push_back(result.error()); } } if (errors.empty()) { return Nothing(); } else { return Error(strings::join("; ", errors)); } } 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 89 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267807> Does it make sense to return a `Try<array<int_fd, 2>>` here for consistency with `os::pipe`? 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 94 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267812> I'd name this `result`, if only to be less brief. 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 101 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267808> If we'd change the return type, we'd be able to directly work in `s`. 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 131-132 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267817> Does it make sense to include this setup into this function? This function does not invoke `send`. 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 136 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267815> Could you insert linebreaks after `,`? 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 137 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267813> Any reason we don't just let the message from `strerror` with the current `errno` propagate automatically, `ErrnoError()`? 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 143 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267816> Ditto. 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp Lines 144 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/#comment267814> Ditto. - Benjamin Bannier On Nov. 8, 2017, 2:12 a.m., James Peach wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 8, 2017, 2:12 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier and Jie Yu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-8156 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8156 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added a `net::socketpair` helper to stout that deals with > automatically setting O_CLOEXEC and disabling SIGPIPE where > necessary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/socket.hpp > bab0b808f53abd1314a7d13fc0cba75e5717f96f > 3rdparty/stout/tests/os/sendfile_tests.cpp > 05966ae067ae3972598da3370eb16fdce5736c21 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63654/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check (Fedora 26, macOS) > > > Thanks, > > James Peach > >
