Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/ --- (Updated March 12, 2016, 1:30 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Jiang

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review123103 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [44342] Passed command:

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/ --- (Updated March 11, 2016, 12:55 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/ --- (Updated March 10, 2016, 11:29 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 9, 2016, 6:03 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/disk/xfs.hpp, line 84 > > > > > > About the type: should it be `prid_t` which more accurately describes > > what it is?

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 9, 2016, 10:03 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/disk/xfs.cpp, lines 573-576 > > > > > > We do need to handle orphans, as you've commented in `cleanup()`. > > > >

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 9, 2016, 6:03 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/disk/xfs.hpp, line 87 > > > > > > Ditto about uint32_t vs prid_t. We don't use ``prid_t`` in the header so that the XFS

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review122156 --- Partial review. Continuing on the latest revision. It would be

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review122395 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [44342] Passed command:

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/ --- (Updated March 7, 2016, 6:38 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Jiang

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 4, 2016, 1:08 a.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/disk/xfs.hpp, line 84 > > > > > > This should be optional because some directories are not isolated. On recovery, it is

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review121952 --- Current comments while going through the code. Will do a more

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 3, 2016, 5:51 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > Hi, @jamespeach Your patch looks great. I have a question, `ENOSPC` only > > happen when call `write` and we could not register any singal handler in > > this isolator to receive a exceed quote singal, right? > > James Peach wrote: >

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 3, 2016, 5:51 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > Hi, @jamespeach Your patch looks great. I have a question, `ENOSPC` only > > happen when call `write` and we could not register any singal handler in > > this isolator to receive a exceed quote singal, right? The write fails with

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 3, 2016, 5:51 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/disk/xfs.cpp, line 597 > > > > > > Why we don't move assign logic to `isolate()`? You want to do the project ID

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/ --- (Updated March 3, 2016, 6:06 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Jiang

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 3, 2016, 5:30 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > src/Makefile.am, line 869 > > > > > > Do you forgot to update CMake? > > James Peach wrote: > Nope, I just didn't want to block on learning how to do

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 3, 2016, 5:30 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > src/Makefile.am, line 869 > > > > > > Do you forgot to update CMake? Nope, I just didn't want to block on learning how to do this in Cmake. Can we split

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review121890 --- Hi, @jamespeach Your patch looks great. I have a question,

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 3, 2016, 5:38 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp, line 216 > > > > > > Does your isolator only work in linux? Yes. - James

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review121889 --- src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp (line 216)

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review121888 --- src/Makefile.am (line 869)

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/ --- (Updated March 3, 2016, 5 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Jiang Yan

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

> On March 3, 2016, 4:58 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > Can you rebase? Looks like the diff is not correct. Bleh. Sorry I didn't notice that :-/ - James --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:

Re: Review Request 44342: XFS disk resource isolator.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44342/#review121878 --- Can you rebase? Looks like the diff is not correct. - Jie Yu