----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31141/#review72886 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! 3rdparty/libprocess/src/clock.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/31141/#comment119007> Not your bug but s/'timer's/'timers'/ 3rdparty/libprocess/src/clock.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/31141/#comment119008> Can we add another comment here, perhaps after we've calcuated 'duration', that explains that it's possible that 'duration' is negative which implies the timer should have expired but that this is an accepted result. And maybe even add a brief comment for as much in the comment above this function? Thanks Ben, I want to leave as many breadcrumbs for the next people that work on this code as possible. 3rdparty/libprocess/src/clock.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/31141/#comment119009> Please add a comment just above this that explains we're passing NULL to be explicit about getting the global clock value, thanks Ben! - Benjamin Hindman On Feb. 18, 2015, 3:11 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/31141/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 18, 2015, 3:11 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Joris Van Remoortere. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > When the clock is paused, `next()` should return `None()` since no timers can > fire until the clock is advanced or updated. > > As a regression during the re-factoring, the `Clock::now()` used to schedule > these timers can now be called when `__process__` is set! That led to a flaky > test when applying the above fix. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/clock.cpp b92d5de2631986506361e28c05cb6169e6632a70 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31141/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Ben Mahler > >
