Hi, Dmitry, the changes looks fine.
Thanks, Artem On 5/30/2013 8:50 AM, dmitry markov wrote:
Hi Anthony, Thank you for taking a look. If you do not mind, I'd prefer to stay the fix as is. Could anyone else review the changes, please? Thank you in advance, Dmitry On 29/05/2013 16:26, Anthony Petrov wrote:Hi Dmitry, I like the idea of the fix. Note that the proposed implementation still allows for timeout to become larger than the constant, and it gets reset back to the value of the constant on the next iteration only. Perhaps it would be simpler to just do the following: if (t<T) { t <<= 1; } - i.e. we don't really need the : branch of the ?: operator. IMO that would simplify the logic. But I'm OK with the current version as well. See for yourself if you want to update the fix. In any case, we need at least one more reviewer for this patch. -- best regards, Anthony On 05/27/2013 04:28 PM, dmitry markov wrote:Hello, Could you review the fix, please? bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8015375 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkarnauk/8015375/webrev.00/ The function XNextSecondaryLoopEvent() should use a progressive time out value instead of hardcoded 250 msces during secondary loop execution. Thanks, Dmitry
