----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#review141657 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! src/slave/slave.cpp (line 2506) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207033> "the operations" src/slave/slave.cpp (line 2507) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207032> "the update to checkpoints" seems vague -- how about "the update to checkpointed resources"? src/slave/slave.cpp (line 2521) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207034> "committing" src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4736) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207071> This comment and the comment a few lines below ("Attempt to sync...") seem a bit redundant. Can we consolidate them into a single comment? src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4762) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207074> Should we also remove the target resources in the case when target and checkpointed resources are the same? src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4767) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207023> Can we include the error message from `rm` in the log message we emit? src/slave/state.cpp (line 704) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207026> Needs a newline after it, per style guide. ("Inside a code block, every multi-line statement should be followed by one empty line.") src/slave/state.cpp (line 712) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207030> Can we avoid reusing the same variable name? How about `infoPath` and `targetPath`? src/slave/state.cpp (line 714) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207072> Does this merit a `LOG(INFO)`? Seems like the common case is that a target checkpointed resource file will not be found. src/slave/state.cpp (line 720) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207027> Needs a newline. src/slave/state.cpp (line 732) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/#comment207028> Should be `string`, not `std::string`. Can you update the review summary to describe the new protocol implemented by this RR? - Neil Conway On July 1, 2016, 9:39 p.m., Anindya Sinha wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 1, 2016, 9:39 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Neil Conway and Jiang Yan Xu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-5448 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5448 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > When the agent receives CheckpointedResourcesMessage, we store the > target checkpoint on disk. On successful create and destroy of > persistent volumes as a part of handling this messages, we commit > the checkpoint on the disk, and clear the target checkpoint. > > However, incase of any failure we do not commit the checkpoint to > disk, and exit the agent. When the agent restarts and there is a > target checkpoint present on disk which differs from the committed > checkpoint, we retry to sync the target and committed checkpoint. > On success, we reregister the agent with the master, but in case it > fails, we do not commit the checkpoint and the agent exists. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/paths.hpp 339e539863c678b6ed4d4670d75c7ff4c54daa79 > src/slave/paths.cpp 03157f93b1e703006f95ef6d0a30afae375dcdb5 > src/slave/slave.hpp 484ba758b4c87935aabd2f76a0e654a3c6d09167 > src/slave/slave.cpp da643e6e50b2f313705d2f862c961291aa5d2f22 > src/slave/state.hpp 0de2a4ee4fabaad612c4526166157b001c380bdb > src/slave/state.cpp 9cec0868b1187ed3ccac7f065e8a21c2f52178d9 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48313/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > All tests passed. > > > Thanks, > > Anindya Sinha > >
