On 11/17/11 4:14 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 17/11/2011 08:29, Alan Bateman wrote:
.....
I see Chris's mail points out that some tests do have an unusually small
timeout. For those tests then I would be tempted to just remove the
timeout. Most likely the original author of the test put a small timeout
to make it quick to test on a JDK that didn't have the fix.
Right, I've seen this before ( bug in JDK that causes deadlock, set
small timeout on test so doesn't block for too long before being
interrupted by jtreg). But if these tests ever fail then it means we
have a problem, the small timeout is just not necessary at all in a
JDK that doesn't have the issue being tested for.
Maybe this would be a good place to start and eliminate some of the
low hanging fruit ;-)
It would help to know which of the quick timeouts
were intentional and which ones are required for
proper execution of the tests.
Not all "drops" are good for "applesauce".
