-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65900/#review203611
-----------------------------------------------------------



This commit contains both refactoring and functional changes. We should split 
the refactoring into a separate patch so that they can be reviewed and tested 
independently. The commit message for that should explain the context of why 
the refactoring is necessary.

Once that is done, then we can make the functional changes in this patch, but I 
think the ordering is wrong. This patch removes the code that creates the mount 
points, and that functionality is not restored until later in the series. We 
need to add all the necessary support earlier in the series, then switch the 
callers over to it in a single patch so that there is never a commit where 
things are not working.

Once you tackle the above points, I think that the commit message for this 
patch needs a lot more detail. We need to explain the context of this change 
and give the reader information about why this change is important (ie. what is 
the benefit of making the change) and some more concrete information about what 
is being changed.


src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/volume/utils.hpp
Lines 18 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/65900/#comment285900>

    There's no need for this to be header-only, let's make a .cpp and a .hpp.



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/volume/utils.hpp
Lines 40 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/65900/#comment285901>

    This really boils down to separate code paths depending on whether there is 
a `rootfs`. Can we break this into 2 separate functions, mirroring the original 
code? That's easier to understand, since we don't have a function that is 
performing double-duty.


- James Peach


On May 17, 2018, 1:16 a.m., Jason Lai wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65900/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 17, 2018, 1:16 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anish Gupta, Eric Chung, Gilbert Song, Jie Yu, 
> James Peach, and Zhitao Li.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8257
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8257
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Defer creation of volume target paths to container launch.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am c08ac6e2f5deec4d05f59f71ff6c51382f216708 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/volume/host_path.cpp 
> 9127cf4a9d8aa2b16bb5b9903103f1f76a1e2b1a 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/volume/image.cpp 
> 631553e2f61a1b95dd93d333b547ff237f65f59e 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/volume/sandbox_path.cpp 
> e0cae1036e2e49b4f61705c77f31ae166d1b1380 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/volume/utils.hpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65900/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason Lai
> 
>

Reply via email to