> On Jan. 15, 2015, 7:07 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > > > Jie Yu wrote: > Also, can you follow BenM's comment in r28809 and create a ticket to > capture the TODO. I am wondering if we end up using two files to solve the > TODO, what the interface should be? Maybe we should call it > state::update(path, resources)? Any thoughts?
One more thought! Maybe we can leverage the 'rename' system call to solve the TODO? In fact, the state::checkpoint functions should be quite generic: 1) if the path has a file there, write to a temp file and use 'rename' to atomically update the file 2) if the path does not have a file, write it directly Also, once we introduced checkpoint for repeated protobuf messages, I don't think we need to have this checkpoint(path, resources) function anymore? Thoughts? - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29918/#review68286 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 15, 2015, 6:30 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29918/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 15, 2015, 6:30 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, Jie Yu, and > Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > Introduced checkpoint function for Resources. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/state.hpp 70777cf6ab681c29ca4df601fe47903e1dbdf41f > src/slave/state.cpp a36fa53099300ee03f051b0f5eaaafe9f1da68d1 > src/tests/slave_recovery_tests.cpp 809822e63b05a21418cd9297c927d656d6fd871d > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29918/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
