On Fri, 9 May 2025 14:50:49 GMT, Viktor Klang <vkl...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I'm a bit uneasy about incrementing the `count` in `linkFirst` but not >>> enforcing the invariant. What's the benefit to changing linkFirst and >>> linkLast to return void instead of keeping the original returning a boolean? >> >> I based the approach on the LBQ enqueue() and dequeue() methods, which also >> return void and have a comment with the assertion. > > I understand, alas LBQ enqueue() and dequeue() don't increment a counter. It > seems a bit brittle that the invariant needs to be maintained *externally* to > the state modification. For the sake of maintainability I think the checks > and the increment/decrement belongs in the same unit of work. This is what I meant about reducing sequential consistency. But it does work out in terms of maintaining specs. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24925#discussion_r2084442740
