> On April 11, 2017, 7:05 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > I wonder if we should make a similar change to `Master::updateTask()`? I > > don't feel super strongly one way or another, but you could argue that it > > would improve symmetry.
Done. - James ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58303/#review171611 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 11, 2017, 9:40 p.m., James Peach wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/58303/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 11, 2017, 9:40 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B, Mesos Reviewbot, and Neil Conway. > > > Bugs: MESOS-7372 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7372 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > In all cases where we call Master::removeTask, we have the correct slave > pointer in hand. We can just pass it down, avoiding the need to look it > up again with the SlaveID. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.hpp d537933d0b467a6f9996951c601b31338bb9d034 > src/master/master.cpp c1f3c4f3bbcbfb10ae8fc974bd4a16ec070a79fd > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58303/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Make check (Fedora 25). Internal fuzzing. > > > Thanks, > > James Peach > >
