dlmarion commented on a change in pull request #2329:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2329#discussion_r746862199
##########
File path:
core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/fate/zookeeper/DistributedReadWriteLock.java
##########
@@ -218,22 +228,69 @@ public boolean tryLock() {
}
SortedMap<Long,byte[]> entries = qlock.getEarlierEntries(entry);
Iterator<Entry<Long,byte[]>> iterator = entries.entrySet().iterator();
- if (!iterator.hasNext())
+ if (!iterator.hasNext()) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Did not find our own lock in the
queue: " + this.entry
+ " userData " + new String(this.userData, UTF_8) + " lockType " +
lockType());
- return iterator.next().getKey().equals(entry);
+ }
+ if (iterator.next().getKey().equals(entry)) {
+ return true;
+ }
+ if (failBlockers) {
+ // Loop through all of the prior transactions that are waiting to
+ // acquire this write lock. If the transaction has not succeeded or
failed,
+ // then fail it and return false from this method so that
Utils.reserveX()
+ // will call this method again and will re-check the prior
transactions.
+ boolean result = true;
Review comment:
So, in the case where we are failingBlockers, WriteLock.tryLock() would
always return false and then the FaTE framework would try again. When all of
the blockers have been failed and removed, then this txid would be the first in
the list. Is that what you are saying? Sounds good to me.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
