On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 05:03:53 GMT, Josiah Noel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> That is pretty sus, because this PR should only change behavior for 1xx >>> codes. >> >> Right. Emphasis on the 'should' :-) I haven't actually reviewed the proposed >> changes, just gave them a cursory look. This was just a guinea pig test run >> experiment to see if any tests would fail consistently and try to catch >> early mistakes. >> I intend to do a more thorough review in the coming days. >> >> The state management in the HttpServer is far from obvious - and stop() >> relies on the state to be accurate. stop() happens asynchronously, which >> adds opportunity for more races. That failing test is kind of timeout >> dependent - so it is possible that it will fail on overloaded machines. That >> said - I didn't see evidence in the log that the test was executing slower >> that usual, and I haven't seen that test failing before in the CI. I will >> need to investigate more (which will take time). > >> I intend to do a more thorough review in the coming days. > > I'm sure that when you get time to review in earnest, you'll find it quite > hard to believe that these changes have any relation. I'm okay with @SentryMan fixing this. I filed another issue for the API change that I suggested (https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8368955) and I will open a PR for that after this issue is fixed. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27069#issuecomment-3365172701
