> On April 4, 2016, 10:35 a.m., haosdent huang wrote:
> > src/tests/cluster.cpp, line 437
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45689/diff/1/?file=1324705#file1324705line437>
> >
> >     how about
> >     
> >     ```
> >     if (!containerizer) {
> >       return;
> >     }
> >     ```
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>     +1 this is better.
> 
> James Peach wrote:
>     You can't early return because you have to call ``terminate()``.
> 
> Jiang Yan Xu wrote:
>     Alright, overlooked it :) However it looks like the lines above this 
> suffer from the same problem:
>     
>     ```
>     if (!cleanUpContainersInDestructor) {
>       return;
>     }
>     ```
>     
>     In generl I think this is OK:
>     
>     
>     How about 
>     
>     ```
>     if (!containerizer || !cleanUpContainersInDestructor) {
>       terminate();
>       return;
>     }
>     
>     ...
>     ```
> 
> James Peach wrote:
>     AFAICT skipping cleanup tasks when ``cleanUpContainersInDestructor`` is 
> ``false`` is by design.

Haosdent's suggestion works in this case.  See explanation in my review posted 
below.


- Joseph


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45689/#review126866
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 4, 2016, 10:31 a.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45689/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 4, 2016, 10:31 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere, Joseph Wu, and Jiang Yan Xu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> If Cluster::Slave::start() fails, make sure we don't crash in the
> destructor.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/cluster.cpp 14d0d34fcb4c408ad996672394c39c84fd2be918 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45689/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Make check.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to