Hi
This is urgent for a customer case, so we would need the second review. Dmitry
was ok with the fix. Sergey, you also got some additional review from someone
who was not an official reviewer, right? Could you paste those comments?
If no one on this alias feels comfortable with reviewing this
On 17/09/2014 7:01 AM, shanliang wrote:
David Holmes wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
On 16/09/2014 7:12 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review the following fix:
I don't see any functional change. You seem to have replaced a
built-in timeout with the externally applied test harness timeout.
Yes no fu
David Holmes wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
On 16/09/2014 7:12 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review the following fix:
I don't see any functional change. You seem to have replaced a
built-in timeout with the externally applied test harness timeout.
Yes no functional change here, we thought that the
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 14:44 -0700, Staffan Friberg wrote:
> Hi,
> > The latter messes up the method signatures, and in any case (when using
> > option one or three) this code is slightly racy as we might report too
> > many events as another thread might have claimed the object. (Parallel
> >
On 9/16/14 1:24 PM, shanliang wrote:
Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
line 116 - you could use a CountDownLatch instead of an
AtomicInteger. It would avoid having to use the busy loop at
lines 134-136.
Yes CountDownLatch is really a good idea, I tried to modify the code as
less as possible, I
Hi Shanliang,
On 16/09/2014 7:12 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review the following fix:
I don't see any functional change. You seem to have replaced a built-in
timeout with the externally applied test harness timeout.
Style nit: add a space after 'while' -> while (cond) {
David
-
Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
line 116 - you could use a CountDownLatch instead of an
AtomicInteger. It would avoid having to use the busy loop at
lines 134-136.
Yes CountDownLatch is really a good idea, I tried to modify the code as
less as possible, I prefer to keep the old code this time
Hi,
I need a second approval for the fix integration.
Can somebody else review the patch?
BR,
Sergey
On 12.09.2014 17:34, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Sergey,
Looks good for me.
-Dmitry
On 2014-09-12 12:46, Sergey Gabdurakhmanov wrote:
Dmitry,
New patch:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgabdura/8
Hi Shanliang,
line 116 - you could use a CountDownLatch instead of an
AtomicInteger. It would avoid having to use the busy loop at
lines 134-136.
I also wonder whether you could increase the sleep timeout
at line 107 - to make that loop a bit less buzy.
Unless that would alter the test too much
Hi,
Please review the following fix:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8050115
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-8050115/00/
Thanks,
Shanliang
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 14:32 -0700, Staffan Friberg wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I feel that this is outside of the scope of this event and change. It is
> probably a good thing to track to understand if an application wastes
> more memory than wanted.
> Perhaps open an RFE for a separate event a
11 matches
Mail list logo
