> On Nov. 19, 2014, 7:58 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp, lines 568-572 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/28195/diff/1/?file=768159#file768159line568> > > > > Should these be CHECKing the appropriate state invariants? Or, at the > > very least we should have a comment here to describe that these should only > > be called when the future is transitioned out of pending (or discard is > > true for the one case), otherwise since these do not acquire the locks! > > > > Seems a little unfortunate to make the reasoning around the > > synchronization invariants less local.
Hey Ben. I've added asserts to check for the corresponding states within the callbacks, and also adjust the comment above the declarations of the functions with the expectation. - Joris ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28195/#review62213 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 19, 2014, 10:16 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/28195/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 19, 2014, 10:16 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Dominic Hamon, Niklas Nielsen, > and Timothy Chen. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2126 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2126 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Factor out callback invocation in Future to make the logic easier to read. It > also de-duplicates some code. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp > 2e4f9efe53e2e9966f23bd516e61fd9d83ed6b33 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28195/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Joris Van Remoortere > >
