On March 31, 2014, 6:23 p.m., Adam B wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, lines 102-104
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/9/?file=530839#file530839line102
This only deletes the strings for the child environment and leaves the
parent env strings alone, right? Is
On March 24, 2014, 8:51 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, lines 63-64
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/9/?file=530839#file530839line63
What's not clear from reading this code is that our technique here is
to reserve the first [0,size) envp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated April 2, 2014, 10:59 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated April 2, 2014, 1:44 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review39360
---
Ship it!
Great cleanup with os::environment.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated April 2, 2014, 2:57 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review39362
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review39120
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review38361
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 20, 2014, 10:52 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37860
---
Thanks for pulling out the cleanup review!
On March 18, 2014, 7:05 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
It's a bit difficult to read the change to the logic here since you're
moving to a .cpp file (which is great!) and updating the logic at the same
time.
Mind splitting the diff into two parts to make reviewing faster? :)
19416
i'll
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 20, 2014, 4:20 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
On March 20, 2014, 1 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, lines 48-49
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/7/?file=528493#file528493line48
What does '// = delete' mean? Do you still need this now that you've
added the comment about what you're trying
On March 20, 2014, 8 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp, line 10
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/7/?file=528494#file528494line10
System C includes go before C++ includes, can you revert the move?
Dominic Hamon wrote:
gmock is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 20, 2014, 4:40 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
On March 18, 2014, 3:57 p.m., Dominic Hamon wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, line 52
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/5/?file=523512#file523512line52
It would only really change line 71. Given the execle call expects a
char** eventually, i'd rather keep it in
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 19, 2014, 11:51 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 19, 2014, 3:29 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
On March 18, 2014, 10:57 p.m., Dominic Hamon wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, line 52
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/5/?file=523512#file523512line52
It would only really change line 71. Given the execle call expects a
char** eventually, i'd rather keep it
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37678
---
It's a bit difficult to read the change to the logic here since
On March 18, 2014, 10:57 p.m., Dominic Hamon wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, line 52
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/5/?file=523512#file523512line52
It would only really change line 71. Given the execle call expects a
char** eventually, i'd rather keep it
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 17, 2014, 12:33 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37443
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp
On March 15, 2014, 8:46 a.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
Great extension, thanks Dominic. Super valuable for my current work.
On March 15, 2014, 8:46 a.m., Till Toenshoff wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, line 77
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37316
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37167
---
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 9:45 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
On March 13, 2014, 11:38 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp, lines 137-138
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/3/?file=519501#file519501line137
What does = delete mean? Perhaps use the same comment from other
places in the code:
On March 12, 2014, 5:33 p.m., Ian Downes wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, line 38
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/1/?file=517809#file517809line38
shouldn't we be escaping keys/values...
setenv technically isn't async-signal-safe but that could be
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 13, 2014, 10:59 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37074
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37137
---
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp
On March 13, 2014, 11:01 a.m., Nikita Vetoshkin wrote:
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp, line 38
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/diff/1/?file=517809#file517809line38
Why not putenv explicitly in child process or use execle?
Please see latest diff.
- Dominic
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37143
---
3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
(Updated March 13, 2014, 5:46 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/
---
Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler.
Repository:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19162/#review37021
---
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp
38 matches
Mail list logo
