----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#review146845 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (line 429) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment213595> i think there is a third case in the normal destroy path, right? src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (line 441) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment213596> no need for the extra `()` src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (lines 442 - 445) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment213597> I would return a Failure here instead. - Jie Yu On Aug. 25, 2016, 12:52 a.m., Gilbert Song wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 25, 2016, 12:52 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Artem Harutyunyan, Jie Yu, and > Kevin Klues. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6067 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6067 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added nested container check in provisioner destroy. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp > 8e35ff49ec99a242e764095dcfbb541c5e41ec71 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Gilbert Song > >
