You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mesos.apache.org by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me> on 2013/04/24 02:30:10 UTC
Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
Description
-------
See summary.
Diffs
-----
src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Jiang Yan Xu
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
> On April 24, 2013, 6:50 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.hpp, line 43
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/1/?file=283945#file283945line43>
> >
> > Can you pull this down after Reaper class. That has been our convention. You might need a forward declaration of Reaper process.
It was addressed in:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/
> On April 24, 2013, 6:50 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.cpp, line 65
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/1/?file=283946#file283946line65>
> >
> > revert if the above is reverted to Try
See Ben's comments.
> On April 24, 2013, 6:50 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.cpp, line 59
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/1/?file=283946#file283946line59>
> >
> > Why Future<Nothing> instead of Try<Nothing>?
See Ben's comments.
- Jiang Yan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19636
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19636
-----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/reaper.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40540>
Kill this. We don't usually do this in header files. Use process::Future explicitly where needed.
src/slave/reaper.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40543>
Can you pull this down after Reaper class. That has been our convention. You might need a forward declaration of Reaper process.
src/slave/reaper.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40542>
Add a comment here saying "Reaper implementation". That would explain why you didn't comment the public methods here.
src/slave/reaper.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40541>
s/TOOD/TODO/
src/slave/reaper.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40544>
Why Future<Nothing> instead of Try<Nothing>?
src/slave/reaper.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40545>
revert if the above is reverted to Try
src/slave/reaper.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40546>
new line
- Vinod Kone
On April 24, 2013, 12:30 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 24, 2013, 12:30 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Benjamin Hindman <be...@berkeley.edu>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19649
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
src/slave/reaper.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40589>
Never have using directives in header files. When you think you must use them, go get some coffee and figure out a way not to instead. ;)
src/slave/reaper.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40588>
To elaborate, it definitely needs to be a Future in Reaper, but it can be a Try in ReaperProcess if you can perform the function synchronously. However, we don't want to return Future<Try<Nothing>> here, so until we have an overloaded Future<T> constructor which takes a Try<T>, you did the right thing to return Future.
src/slave/reaper.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40590>
The formatting doesn't look correct here, see the old code.
- Benjamin Hindman
On April 24, 2013, 12:30 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 24, 2013, 12:30 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19804
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Vinod Kone
On April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated April 30, 2013, 9:01 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
Changes
-------
Rebased.
Description
-------
See summary.
Diffs (updated)
-----
src/slave/cgroups_isolator.hpp 7b8270d0b0f94a71da12bc123d39b44c40c3f7ed
src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp f12fd48fe739015429a3fe51cc8dce366ec4a483
src/slave/process_isolator.hpp 9875f4a6e8e109e31ad390fbd7a84d03ad747190
src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6938fbcca9d384bb014ff4dd52a13763c1f8397a
src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
src/slave/reaper.cpp b4d8912fa4a5910b0003c06b87a7fbc6164a6382
src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Jiang Yan Xu
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Ben Mahler <be...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19927
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Ben Mahler
On April 30, 2013, 1:15 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 30, 2013, 1:15 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.hpp f8fabc4e1c3c303b35a76db96b4b2479bd7c8ff8
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.hpp 9875f4a6e8e109e31ad390fbd7a84d03ad747190
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated April 30, 2013, 1:15 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
Changes
-------
Made Reaper an object instead of a pointer member of ProcessIsolator and CgroupsIsolator, removed empty destructors as a result.
Description
-------
See summary.
Diffs (updated)
-----
src/slave/cgroups_isolator.hpp f8fabc4e1c3c303b35a76db96b4b2479bd7c8ff8
src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
src/slave/process_isolator.hpp 9875f4a6e8e109e31ad390fbd7a84d03ad747190
src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Jiang Yan Xu
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
> On April 29, 2013, 5:49 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.hpp, lines 42-64
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/2/?file=285024#file285024line42>
> >
> > Can you move this under Reaper?
> >
> > If exposing the underlying Process in the header, we typically place it below the API, e.g.:
> > src/slave/gc.hpp
> > src/slave/monitor.hpp
This was addressed in https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/.
> On April 29, 2013, 5:49 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.cpp, line 49
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/2/?file=285025#file285025line49>
> >
> > Looks like this destructor is not necessary?
Thanks for the examples above, I think I should discard all the futures the same way GarbageCollectorProcess does it?
GarbageCollectorProcess::~GarbageCollectorProcess()
{
foreachvalue (const PathInfo& info, paths) {
info.promise->future().discard();
}
}
- Jiang Yan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19871
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
> On April 29, 2013, 5:49 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.cpp, line 49
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/2/?file=285025#file285025line49>
> >
> > Looks like this destructor is not necessary?
>
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> Thanks for the examples above, I think I should discard all the futures the same way GarbageCollectorProcess does it?
>
> GarbageCollectorProcess::~GarbageCollectorProcess()
> {
> foreachvalue (const PathInfo& info, paths) {
> info.promise->future().discard();
> }
> }
>
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> I am sorry the clean-up is in the Process class, not the wrapper. I'll delete the destructor.
Clearly I wasn't awake yet... Ignore the last reply.
I am adding promise.future().discard()s to the ReaperProcess destructor.
- Jiang Yan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19871
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
> On April 29, 2013, 5:49 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.cpp, line 49
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/2/?file=285025#file285025line49>
> >
> > Looks like this destructor is not necessary?
>
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> Thanks for the examples above, I think I should discard all the futures the same way GarbageCollectorProcess does it?
>
> GarbageCollectorProcess::~GarbageCollectorProcess()
> {
> foreachvalue (const PathInfo& info, paths) {
> info.promise->future().discard();
> }
> }
>
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> I am sorry the clean-up is in the Process class, not the wrapper. I'll delete the destructor.
>
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> Clearly I wasn't awake yet... Ignore the last reply.
> I am adding promise.future().discard()s to the ReaperProcess destructor.
Killed the destructor.
- Jiang Yan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19871
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, 2013, 1:15 a.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 30, 2013, 1:15 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.hpp f8fabc4e1c3c303b35a76db96b4b2479bd7c8ff8
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.hpp 9875f4a6e8e109e31ad390fbd7a84d03ad747190
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
> On April 29, 2013, 5:49 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.cpp, line 49
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/2/?file=285025#file285025line49>
> >
> > Looks like this destructor is not necessary?
>
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> Thanks for the examples above, I think I should discard all the futures the same way GarbageCollectorProcess does it?
>
> GarbageCollectorProcess::~GarbageCollectorProcess()
> {
> foreachvalue (const PathInfo& info, paths) {
> info.promise->future().discard();
> }
> }
I am sorry the clean-up is in the Process class, not the wrapper. I'll delete the destructor.
- Jiang Yan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19871
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Ben Mahler <be...@gmail.com>.
> On April 29, 2013, 5:49 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/slave/reaper.hpp, lines 42-64
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/2/?file=285024#file285024line42>
> >
> > Can you move this under Reaper?
> >
> > If exposing the underlying Process in the header, we typically place it below the API, e.g.:
> > src/slave/gc.hpp
> > src/slave/monitor.hpp
>
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
> This was addressed in https://reviews.apache.org/r/10746/.
Oh ok, sounds good, in the future it's better to have each review isolated, so that I don't have to know you've moved it in another change :)
- Ben
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19871
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Ben Mahler <be...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#review19871
-----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40986>
Why is this still a pointer?
src/slave/process_isolator.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40987>
Ditto
src/slave/reaper.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40990>
Can you move this under Reaper?
If exposing the underlying Process in the header, we typically place it below the API, e.g.:
src/slave/gc.hpp
src/slave/monitor.hpp
src/slave/reaper.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/#comment40991>
Looks like this destructor is not necessary?
- Ben Mahler
On April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m., Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
> src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
> src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
> src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
> src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiang Yan Xu
>
>
Re: Review Request: Refactored Reaper with an abstraction that hides the
dispatching syntax.
Posted by Jiang Yan Xu <ya...@jxu.me>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated April 26, 2013, 7:50 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Vinod Kone, and Ben Mahler.
Changes
-------
Addressed comments.
Description
-------
See summary.
Diffs (updated)
-----
src/slave/cgroups_isolator.cpp 8b79da50d8fb0c2c8716dd7d2c734b65c32f60b4
src/slave/process_isolator.cpp 6e2af87d291d7c3448393c1ffa816f7020e2dff6
src/slave/reaper.hpp 09844d8d47b143ee369e0c82b19d65a774df4a90
src/slave/reaper.cpp bd3dcef07c370ad338b478755bf8f7ce6408e4a3
src/tests/reaper_tests.cpp 0809c1ff17eb949beb1bdd922fdced022aa202f3
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10744/diff/
Testing
-------
make check
Thanks,
Jiang Yan Xu