Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92705040
[Test build #30239 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/30239/consoleFull)
for PR 5508 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92698359
Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92698353
[Test build #30238 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/30238/consoleFull)
for PR 5508 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92697977
[Test build #30238 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/30238/consoleFull)
for PR 5508 at commit
GitHub user zhichao-li opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508
[SPARK-6897][Streaming]remove volatile from BlockingGenerator.currentBuffer
to reduce unnecessary overhead
currentBuffer has been protected by synchronized, so it would introduce
unnecessary
Github user zhichao-li commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92773590
These are slightly different ideas. I agree in practice here that there is
no visibility problem that volatile would solve that isn't already taken care
of by the
Github user zhichao-li commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92776100
oops... Maybe it's not always true that avoid the use of `volatile` and
`synchronized` like double check singleton(although it's a must in that case).
Anyway, just
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92730223
These are slightly different ideas. I agree in practice here that there is
no visibility problem that volatile would solve that isn't already taken care
of by the memory
Github user SparkQA commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92757494
[Test build #30239 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/30239/consoleFull)
for PR 5508 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92757565
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user srowen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-92776528
`volatile` may still matter if this were read outside a `synchronized`
method here. Although I doubt that would happen, I suppose my instinct is to
leave it if there's
Github user zhichao-li closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user zhichao-li commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/5508#issuecomment-93124531
@srowen , Thanks for the comments. I'm closing it :) .
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
13 matches
Mail list logo
