-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52805/#review152401
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Ship It!

- nabarun nag


On Oct. 12, 2016, 8:58 p.m., Dan Smith wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52805/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 12, 2016, 8:58 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, Barry Oglesby and nabarun nag.
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> When executing a function from a client, we can be adding results to the
> result collector from multiple threads. Our docs claim the user should
> not have to synchronize their result collector. One code path was already
> synchronizing on the collector when adding results. However, if the
> function returned an exception we were not synchronizing.
> 
> Adding a SynchronizedResultCollector and wrapping the users collector in
> that to ensure that there will be no unsynchronized access of the result
> collector.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/cache/client/internal/ExecuteFunctionOp.java
>  6597b680227fb47492dc973baecffd504d6cdf68 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/cache/client/internal/ExecuteRegionFunctionSingleHopOp.java
>  51ea8e4fbc64acbbd1165856a2dd09704d63e857 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/execute/ServerFunctionExecutor.java
>  4295898583aff1409bf6acdd84c5a4c8a8709e51 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/execute/ServerRegionFunctionExecutor.java
>  b5bc684e0b29bfc62dd958ccff49d47c2bad36fa 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/execute/util/SynchronizedResultCollector.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52805/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ran the affected test 500 times with this fix. It failed 11 times without it, 
> passed with the fix.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dan Smith
> 
>

Reply via email to