> On Oct. 11, 2017, 12:48 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp
> > Lines 7043-7044 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/62644/diff/2/?file=1850024#file1850024line7045>
> >
> >     These two lines can be merged into a single line.

Yes but if you do that, the indentation of the `UPID()` parameter becomes weird 
and harder to read.


- James


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/62644/#review187650
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 10, 2017, 12:08 a.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/62644/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 10, 2017, 12:08 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Qian Zhang.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7963
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7963
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added a TaskResourcesLimitation field to the `TaskStatus`
> message to convey specific information about a resource
> limit that has been violated by a container.
> 
> This field propagates the resources from the `ContainerLimitation`
> message sent by isolators on the agent, and is populated for the
> following reasons:
> 
>   * `REASON_CONTAINER_LIMITATION`
>   * `REASON_CONTAINER_LIMITATION_DISK`
>   * `REASON_CONTAINER_LIMITATION_MEMORY`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/mesos.proto 1bfcc5bb9091075c6fa1bc36e2cd23afe2e0e0ec 
>   include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto d742adbbf24692d2d82aad51316d767af93942d5 
>   src/common/protobuf_utils.hpp ff0fd01b7a20f597ec6cd916f0bd9c41baa5fd51 
>   src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp 04f44f6f63e431c17ec67e234c8da58e7945294d 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp 2e05637ed10a39eb3f4ce953506b1cb5d50caf3c 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62644/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (Fedora 26)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to