You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to issues@flink.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2022/07/04 02:52:38 UTC

[GitHub] [flink] xintongsong commented on pull request #19991: [FLINK-28065][Runtime/Configuration] Fix a never reached code in ProcessMemoryUtils Class

xintongsong commented on PR #19991:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/19991#issuecomment-1173282190

   I tend not to merge this change.
   
   First of all, the sanity check is unnecessary for both the `if-` and the `else-` branches here. For the `if-` branch, the sanity is guaranteed by the logics in `deriveJvmOverheadFromTotalFlinkMemoryAndOtherComponents`. So if we want to improve these codes, we probably should simply remove the sanity check.
   
   More importantly, I don't see how this change benefits Flink. The "problem" it tries to fix here does not have any actual damage. Admittedly, the code base of Flink is not perfect. Yet, we don't encourage pure cleanup changes like this.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@flink.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org