Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/#review107634 --- Ship it! I'll add a comment as to why we use atomic before committ

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/ --- (Updated Nov. 20, 2015, 11:16 a.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/ --- (Updated Nov. 9, 2015, 2:23 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, J

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

> On Nov. 7, 2015, 7:35 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp, lines 742-770 > > > > > > Could we document why we're not just using process::Once to clean this > > up? > > > > The

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/#review105602 --- 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp (lines 742 - 770)

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/#review105564 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [39948, 39949] All tests pass

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

> On Nov. 6, 2015, 5:50 p.m., Mesos ReviewBot wrote: > > Bad patch! > > > > Reviews applied: [39948] > > > > Failed command: ./support/apply-review.sh -n -r 39948 > > > > Error: > > 2015-11-07 01:50:12 URL:https://reviews.apache.org/r/39948/diff/raw/ > > [2087/2087] -> "39948.patch" [1] > >

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/#review105561 --- Bad patch! Reviews applied: [39948] Failed command: ./support/app

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/ --- (Updated Nov. 6, 2015, 2:11 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, J

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/#review105128 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Neil Conway On Nov. 4, 2015, 8:24 p.m., Jos

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

> On Nov. 4, 2015, 11:25 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > Can we test that more thoroughly than just "make check"? e.g., if there's a > > unit test that tries to enter this logic with multiple threads at once, > > running that with gtest_repeat=1000 would be nice. > > Joseph Wu wrote: > There

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/ --- (Updated Nov. 4, 2015, 12:24 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman,

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

> On Nov. 4, 2015, 7:25 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > Can we test that more thoroughly than just "make check"? e.g., if there's a > > unit test that tries to enter this logic with multiple threads at once, > > running that with gtest_repeat=1000 would be nice. > > Joseph Wu wrote: > There a

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

> On Nov. 4, 2015, 11:25 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > Can we test that more thoroughly than just "make check"? e.g., if there's a > > unit test that tries to enter this logic with multiple threads at once, > > running that with gtest_repeat=1000 would be nice. There are tons of methods in libp

Re: Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/#review105115 --- Can we test that more thoroughly than just "make check"? e.g., if t

Review Request 39949: Document and simplify libprocess initialization synchronization logic.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39949/ --- Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Joris Van Remoortere. Repository