> On May 24, 2017, 7:08 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
> > Lines 102-108 (original), 102 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/59484/diff/1/?file=1727588#file1727588line102>
> >
> >     Did we lose the `!= lastCreatedNode` check here? or am I missing 
> > something?

The `current != root` and `current != lastCreatedNode` checks are no longer 
necessary: we now determine whether something is a leaf by looking at its 
`kind`, not the number of children it has. This means we don't need the two 
special cases.


> On May 24, 2017, 7:08 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp
> > Lines 125-127 (original), 119-122 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/59484/diff/1/?file=1727588#file1727588line125>
> >
> >     Is this reordering meaningful?

No, just code cleanup: I thought it was cleaner to put all the updates to 
`current` together.


- Neil


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/59484/#review175906
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 23, 2017, 6:28 a.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/59484/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 23, 2017, 6:28 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler, James Peach, Michael Park, and 
> Jiang Yan Xu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This helps clarify code that wants to distinguish between leaves and
> internal nodes in the sorter.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.hpp 
> fee58d6d1f08163e2a06a4a20c891fe535c3dcff 
>   src/master/allocator/sorter/drf/sorter.cpp 
> 26b77f578f3235a8792c72d4575d607cdb2c7de7 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59484/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to