----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66668/#review203428 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp Line 669 (original), 618 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66668/#comment285644> Why return `wait()` when the state is DESTROYING, rather than just forwarding the call to the underlying containerizer's `destroy()`? With this implementation, the composing containerizer's `wait()` will behave differently than the underlying containerizer's `wait()`, is that what we want? - Greg Mann On April 17, 2018, 3:23 p.m., Andrei Budnik wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/66668/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 17, 2018, 3:23 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Greg Mann, Jie Yu, and Qian > Zhang. > > > Bugs: MESOS-8712 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8712 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Previously, we stored `destroyed` promise for each container and used > it to guarantee that `destroy()` returns a non-empty value when the > destroy-in-progress stops an launch-in-progress using the next > containerizer. Since `wait()` and `destroy()` return the same > `ContainerTermination` value when called with the same ContainerID > argument, we can remove `destroyed` promise and add callbacks to > clean up `containers_` map instead. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp > 1fb79f53b48154ecbd3b0165b6a8002c871e6dce > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66668/diff/4/ > > > Testing > ------- > > internal CI > > > Thanks, > > Andrei Budnik > >
