-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65683/#review198188
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/docker/docker.cpp
Lines 151 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/65683/#comment278295>

    Should we do `killtree()` even if the status is not pending (e.g., ready or 
failure)?
    
    If the semantic (caller invokes `.discard()` -> no longer care about the 
subprocess) is something we want to define for the library, should we always 
killtree regardless whatever status?



src/docker/docker.cpp
Lines 1199 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/65683/#comment278297>

    Should we use a lambda instead of `lambda::bind`? (I know we want 
consistency in this file since we used `lambda::bind` in two other places)
    
    e.g.,
    ```
    .onDiscard([=]() {
      return commandDiscarded();
    }
    ```
    
    We used `lambda::bind` before we have the lambda support in libprocess.



src/docker/docker.cpp
Lines 1641 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/65683/#comment278298>

    ditto.


- Gilbert Song


On Feb. 22, 2018, 11:46 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65683/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 22, 2018, 11:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik, Gilbert Song, Michael Park, and 
> Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8575
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8575
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Updated discard handling in Docker library functions.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/docker/docker.hpp d9e71f8841a868082170d28fc4f3d495e2eb1e61 
>   src/docker/docker.cpp 3df370e988fce12d323ff6b441da15dab27bdd28 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65683/diff/5/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg Mann
> 
>

Reply via email to