> On June 18, 2015, 5:21 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 1418-1420 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/5/?file=986979#file986979line1418> > > > > The only logic question I have here now is how come we don't need the > > following code even though we use it above? > > > > if (framework->executors.empty() && framework->pending.empty()) { > > removeFramework(framework); > > } > > > > If there is some condition that keeps us from having to do this it > > would be great to capture it as a CHECK. It's not obvious here otherwise. > > And if we are removing the framework, then it looks like we'll have the > > same potential issue that Vinod's TODO captures above. > > > > Easiest thing to do here is capture as a comment why this "return" path > > differs. > > Jie Yu wrote: > +1 I think we have to do this add this if block.
+1, we do need to add this. This was pretty difficult to reason about, however. I have some ideas which would simplify this logic but that'll be follow-up work. - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/#review88405 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 18, 2015, 7:47 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 18, 2015, 7:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Benjamin Hindman, and Jie Yu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > No bug was observed (yet), but realized I forgot about this in the dynamic > reservations patches. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/slave.cpp a5ad29f59fadba919ed82ba2892c2febe551660b > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35433/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
