----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#review147381 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/containerizer/mesos/provisioner/provisioner.cpp (lines 443 - 446) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/#comment214510> Is this case recoverable? If we try to destroy a parent without destroying a child first, that means our code is broken. If that is the case, we should CHECK-fail here. - Joseph Wu On Aug. 29, 2016, 2:20 p.m., Gilbert Song wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/51402/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 29, 2016, 2:20 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Artem Harutyunyan, Jie Yu, Joseph > Wu, 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 > >
