-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7756/#review12879
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/linux/cgroups.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/7756/#comment27686>

    Can we use Options::None() as default here and set "RETRIES" in the client 
function?



src/linux/cgroups.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/7756/#comment27684>

    Add a comment here. There are three outcomes:
    1) return true -> success
    2) return false -> retry limit reached
    3) return error -> invalid arguments



src/linux/cgroups.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/7756/#comment27695>

    Here, we do need to check the result of the previous function in the 
function call chain. So, we should introduce a parameter in these functions and 
move the comments from freeze() to here.



src/linux/cgroups.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/7756/#comment27687>

    Instead of copying the code here, let's refactor it to have a common helper 
function.


- Jie Yu


On Oct. 29, 2012, 5:45 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/7756/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 29, 2012, 5:45 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Parent Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7712/
> 
> We'd like to retry the freeze, kill, thaw, watchEmpty steps when the freezing 
> of the cgroups fails.
> 
> This simply retries the above steps when the cgroup does not become empty in 
> the given time interval.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/linux/cgroups.hpp 8147919 
>   src/linux/cgroups.cpp a6056c3 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7756/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check on ubuntu
> 
> This version punts on testing for now, but testing suggestions welcome!
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben Mahler
> 
>

Reply via email to