> On Nov. 15, 2017, 10:53 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp
> > Lines 3751-3757 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63751/diff/4/?file=1893429#file1893429line3751>
> >
> >     Are we leaking `OfferOperation` in the agent memory if we don't call 
> > `updateOfferOperation` and then `removeOfferOperation`?

I've changed the code to remove speculatively applied offer operation after 
sending an update to the master.


- Jan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/63751/#review191109
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 22, 2017, 1:11 p.m., Jan Schlicht wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/63751/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 22, 2017, 1:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8211
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8211
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Agents the have the 'RESOURCE_PROVIDER' capability set, should get sent
> 'ApplyOfferOperationMessage' instead of 'CheckpointResourcesMessage'.
> The agent will then figure out how to apply the operation. For agent
> local resources the agent will checkpoint resources.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/common/protobuf_utils.hpp b2aa3654db2fe7d7d9d275ded81c6d54244654ee 
>   src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp 34054846f93f19ba550afe58e2a899d111ad38dc 
>   src/master/master.cpp 7417b5d641fd4bb6d91cb0e6456c60201bbc8206 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 491419443a1de92c4a77049660e7d7c6c708cd52 
>   src/tests/persistent_volume_tests.cpp 
> acfeac16884b00581a3523607ff26f44f6dca53a 
>   src/tests/reservation_tests.cpp 470f7341686e69d0a71fb234a26b277c45c29780 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63751/diff/8/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jan Schlicht
> 
>

Reply via email to