Hi David/Martin,
If you agree with Kalyan's fix for this issue, could one of you please sponsor
the push.
Thanks,
Sandeep
On Dec 23, 2013, at 11:17 AM, srikalyan chandrashekar
srikalyan.chandrashe...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi David/Martin, could any one of you sponsor this change for me?
---
Hi David/Martin, could any one of you sponsor this change for me?
---
Thanks
kalyan
On 12/20/2013 10:28 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 21/12/2013 4:19 AM, srikalyan wrote:
Hi David, i retained only the changes to ITERS, ProbleMList.txt and
upstream changes by Doug Lea(as pointed by Martin), could
Hi David, i retained only the changes to ITERS, ProbleMList.txt and
upstream changes by Doug Lea(as pointed by Martin), could you please
review the new change available here
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~srikchan/Regression/6772009-CancelledLockLoop-webrev/
.
--
Thanks
kalyan
Ph:
On 21/12/2013 4:19 AM, srikalyan wrote:
Hi David, i retained only the changes to ITERS, ProbleMList.txt and
upstream changes by Doug Lea(as pointed by Martin), could you please
review the new change available here
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~srikchan/Regression/6772009-CancelledLockLoop-webrev/
Sorry Kalyan but I don't see the need for all the incidental changes if
the primary change is to just increase the iterations. I also don't see
why you need to do anything for BrokenBarrierException as it is not
expected to happen and the test should just fail if it does.
David
On 10/12/2013
Hi David/Martin a gentle reminder for review.
--
Thanks
kalyan
Ph: (408)-585-8040
On 12/2/13, 11:21 AM, srikalyan wrote:
Hi David, Thanks for the review, the new webrev is hosted at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cl/host_for_kal/6772009-CancelledLockLoop/
. Please see inline text.
On
Hi David, Thanks for the review, the new webrev is hosted at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cl/host_for_kal/6772009-CancelledLockLoop/ .
Please see inline text.
On 11/20/13, 6:35 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 21/11/2013 10:28 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I again tried and failed to reproduce a
Hi Martin , apologies for the delay , was trying to get help for hosting
my webrev. . Please see inline text.
On 11/19/13, 10:35 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Hi Kalyan,
None of us can review your changes yet because you haven't given us a
URL of your webrev.
It is located here
Hi David , webrev is hosted here
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cl/host_for_srikalyan_6772009_CancelledLockLoops/
.
--
Thanks
kalyan
Ph: (408)-585-8040
On 11/19/13, 11:03 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi,
Attachments are stripped. Please post on cr.openjdk.java.net (get a
colleague to host this if
On 21/11/2013 10:28 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I again tried and failed to reproduce a failure. Even if I go whole hog
and multiply TIMEOUT by 100 and divide ITERS by 100, the test continues to
PASS. Is it just me?!
I think you are going the wrong way Martin - you want the timeout to be
Hi,
Attachments are stripped. Please post on cr.openjdk.java.net (get a
colleague to host this if you don't have an account yet.)
Thanks,
David
On 19/11/2013 4:12 PM, srikalyan chandrashekar wrote:
Hi all, I am working on bug JDK-6772009
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6772009 .
Hi Martin, i incorporated the recent changes from the pointer as well. I
have reproduced the failure, the logs of which are attached to the bug
JDK-6772009 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6772009 . The
failed log is especially interesting .
--
Thanks
kalyan
On 11/18/13 10:15 PM,
Hi all, I am working on bug JDK-6772009
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6772009 .
Root Cause:
The timeout value gives too much grace period on faster machines on
which the TO BE INTERRUPTED threads complete faster before being
interrupted at right time.
Suggested Fix:
a) Decrease
13 matches
Mail list logo