On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 14:58:35 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <dfu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> On second thought, this is probably not necessary; write to the sink field >> is in another synchronized method, and this method is synchronized already. >> Is the goal here to remove the synchronized on flush? > > Good observation. Removing `synchronized` on flush might be a worthwhile goal > but possible side effects (including on potential subclasses) should be > carefully considered. > I support stashing `sink` in a local variable though, even if the pointer > can't be concurrently modified, just to make it clear that we only have one > volatile read. I think it's better to keep `synchronized` over the method this far ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14589#discussion_r1238524265
