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
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
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
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
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:
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
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,
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
>
>
>
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo