Re: RFR: JDK-8168141: javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/EmptyDomainNotificationTest.java: No notif received!

2016-11-08 Thread Robbin Ehn
Hi, On 11/08/2016 01:00 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Lost notification, I don't see that? Yes, sorry, I understand what you meant. (was thinking of notification as in Notification) Thanks! /Robbin

Re: RFR: JDK-8168141: javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/EmptyDomainNotificationTest.java: No notif received!

2016-11-08 Thread Robbin Ehn
Hi David, On 11/08/2016 12:48 PM, David Holmes wrote: Sorry didn't see Staffan's earlier reply :) Thanks anyways! You should always perform a wait() in a loop checking the condition that is being waited upon. This guards against lost-notifications and also spurious wakeups. If you both are

Re: RFR: JDK-8168141: javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/EmptyDomainNotificationTest.java: No notif received!

2016-11-08 Thread David Holmes
Sorry didn't see Staffan's earlier reply :) David On 8/11/2016 9:23 PM, David Holmes wrote: On 8/11/2016 8:44 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi Ujwal, synchronized(li) { while (li.received < 1) { li.wait(100); } } I don't see why we need while loop ? You should always perform a wait

Re: RFR: JDK-8168141: javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/EmptyDomainNotificationTest.java: No notif received!

2016-11-08 Thread David Holmes
On 8/11/2016 8:44 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote: Hi Ujwal, synchronized(li) { while (li.received < 1) { li.wait(100); } } I don't see why we need while loop ? You should always perform a wait() in a loop checking the condition that is being waited upon. This guards against lost-notifi

Re: RFR: JDK-8168141: javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/EmptyDomainNotificationTest.java: No notif received!

2016-11-08 Thread Robbin Ehn
Thanks for the clarification on while loop. On 11/08/2016 11:58 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote: Spurious wakeups can cause wait() to finish early in which case the while loop is needed. But the timeout to wait() doesn’t add anything. And if the while loop is there the next statement is not needed:

Re: RFR: JDK-8168141: javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/EmptyDomainNotificationTest.java: No notif received!

2016-11-08 Thread Staffan Larsen
Spurious wakeups can cause wait() to finish early in which case the while loop is needed. But the timeout to wait() doesn’t add anything. And if the while loop is there the next statement is not needed: 112 if (li.received < 1) { 113 throw new RuntimeException("No notif rece

RE: RFR: JDK-7107018: sun.jvm.hotspot.utilities.soql.JSJavaHeap.forEachClass incorrect test

2016-11-08 Thread Jini Susan George
Thank you, Robbin ! -jini > -Original Message- > From: Robbin Ehn > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 4:02 PM > To: Jini Susan George; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-7107018: > sun.jvm.hotspot.utilities.soql.JSJavaHeap.forEachClass incorrect test > > Hi Jini,

Re: RFR: JDK-7107014: sun.jvm.hotspot.HSDB.FindObjectByTypeCleanupThunk.showConsole.attach infinite loop

2016-11-08 Thread Dmitry Samersoff
Sharath, Looks good to me! -Dmitry On 2016-11-03 12:28, Sharath Ballal wrote: > Hello, > > Pls review the fix for > > > > Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7107014 > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sballal/7107014/webrev.00/ > > > > -Sharath Ballal > > > > >

Re: RFR: JDK-8168141: javax/management/remote/mandatory/notif/EmptyDomainNotificationTest.java: No notif received!

2016-11-08 Thread Robbin Ehn
Hi Ujwal, synchronized(li) { while (li.received < 1) { li.wait(100); } } I don't see why we need while loop ? To me it looks like you could just do: synchronized(li) { li.wait(); } Since either we got notification and received must be bigger than 0. Or

Re: RFR: JDK-7107014: sun.jvm.hotspot.HSDB.FindObjectByTypeCleanupThunk.showConsole.attach infinite loop

2016-11-08 Thread Robbin Ehn
Looks good! /Robbin ('r'eviewer) On 11/03/2016 10:28 AM, Sharath Ballal wrote: Hello, Pls review the fix for Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7107014 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sballal/7107014/webrev.00/ -Sharath Ballal

Re: RFR: JDK-7107018: sun.jvm.hotspot.utilities.soql.JSJavaHeap.forEachClass incorrect test

2016-11-08 Thread Robbin Ehn
Hi Jini, Looks okay! I personally would prefer: if (k != null && l != null) { But I'll leave that up to you. Thanks! /Robbin ('r'eviewer) On 11/03/2016 05:04 AM, Jini Susan George wrote: Please review the trivial fix for the bug below (Unfortunately, the bug is marked confidential): http

Re: RFR: JDK-8169344: Potential open file descriptor in exists() of hotspot/agent/src/os/bsd/ps_core.c

2016-11-08 Thread Dmitry Samersoff
Jini, Looks good to me. -Dmitry On 2016-11-08 12:54, Jini Susan George wrote: > The updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8169344/webrev.01/ > > - jini. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Dmitry Samersoff >> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 11:22 AM >> To: Jini Susan George

Re: RFR: JDK-8169344: Potential open file descriptor in exists() of hotspot/agent/src/os/bsd/ps_core.c

2016-11-08 Thread David Holmes
Looks good! Thanks, David On 8/11/2016 7:54 PM, Jini Susan George wrote: The updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8169344/webrev.01/ - jini. -Original Message- From: Dmitry Samersoff Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 11:22 AM To: Jini Susan George; David Holmes; service

RE: RFR: JDK-8169344: Potential open file descriptor in exists() of hotspot/agent/src/os/bsd/ps_core.c

2016-11-08 Thread Jini Susan George
The updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgeorge/8169344/webrev.01/ - jini. > -Original Message- > From: Dmitry Samersoff > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 11:22 AM > To: Jini Susan George; David Holmes; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8169344: Potentia