----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51379/#review146704 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/health-check/health_checker.cpp (line 79) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51379/#comment213268> I'd rather not inline it. src/health-check/health_checker.cpp (lines 85 - 100) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51379/#comment213267> Let's `#ifdef` the whole function. We can later do one more `#ifdef` and decide whether to pass a custom clone or `None`. src/health-check/health_checker.cpp (line 291) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51379/#comment213266> I was originally thinking that we should not enter the network namespace here, but after a second thought I think I uderstand why you do both here: a command health check may actually try to communicate with the container. I don't think there will be any problems if we enter the network namespace here. But let's document it - Alexander Rukletsov On Aug. 24, 2016, 6:03 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/51379/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 24, 2016, 6:03 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Benjamin Mahler, Gastón > Kleiman, Gilbert Song, Jie Yu, and Timothy Chen. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Entered the appropriate namespaces of the task during health check. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/docker/executor.cpp 8d679cd33b6ddf3a5c11bb8c458a97b8809473ac > src/health-check/health_checker.cpp > 45a5fe00a95a6e88b1990c1396e03082feb202bc > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51379/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > haosdent huang > >
