-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/50187/#review142755
-----------------------------------------------------------



Patch looks great!

Reviews applied: [50187]

Passed command: export OS='ubuntu:14.04' BUILDTOOL='autotools' COMPILER='gcc' 
CONFIGURATION='--verbose' ENVIRONMENT='GLOG_v=1 MESOS_VERBOSE=1'; 
./support/docker_build.sh

- Mesos ReviewBot


On July 19, 2016, 10:08 a.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/50187/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 19, 2016, 10:08 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3760
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3760
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> `Clock::settle` is used to wait until all pending libprocess events
> have been handled. Test cases should typically use it only when there is
> no other way to achieve the proper synchronization between two events.
> 
> Previously, `Clock::settle` also contained an `os::sleep` call to
> workaround broken test cases that assumed `settle` provided stronger
> guarantees than described above (e.g., some test cases assumed that
> doing `http::get` followed by a `Clock::settle` ensured that the remote
> side of the HTTP connection will have seen the request). Currently,
> there are relatively few such test cases, so it is better to fix those
> test cases (or add a `sleep` call to them) and remove the `sleep` from
> `Clock::settle`.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 
> 9661386afd4fddd1877d55941fa403afc9230280 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/metrics_tests.cpp 
> 5a82f4f49aecd03d12687de629516be5b7895036 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/50187/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check` with lots of iterations.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to