On 21/11/2013 11:41, Erik Gahlin wrote:
Thanks, didn't know about ATOMIC_MOVE. it will be useful for other
tests as well.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/6402201_3/
Erik
This looks very good.
-Alan.
Thanks, didn't know about ATOMIC_MOVE. it will be useful for other tests
as well.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/6402201_3/
Erik
Alan Bateman skrev 2013-11-20 12:43:
On 20/11/2013 11:25, Erik Gahlin wrote:
Thanks for your feedback
Here is an updated webrev where the file is renamed.
ht
On 20/11/2013 11:25, Erik Gahlin wrote:
Thanks for your feedback
Here is an updated webrev where the file is renamed.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/6402201_2/
That looks okay to me. One small improvement would be to use
try-with-resources around the file write. Alternatively you could use
Thanks for your feedback
Here is an updated webrev where the file is renamed.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~egahlin/6402201_2/
Erik
Alan Bateman skrev 2013-11-19 09:45:
On 18/11/2013 23:29, Erik Gahlin wrote:
Could I have a review of this test fix.
It appears it takes more than 10 s to write t
Alan,
It works on linux, solaris and macos.
fuser should work on Windows/CYGWIN,
No ideas what happens with Windows/MKS
For Windows it might be better to use handle.exe from sysinternals - it
do exactly the same and very reiliable in my experience.
-Dmitry
On 2013-11-19 14:58, Alan Bateman w
On 19/11/2013 09:33, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Jaroslav,
Use fuser command to wait until file being closed is better way to do it
if fuser -s filename; then Busy; else Ready; fi
-Dmitry
Do you know if this works on all platforms?
-Alan
On 19.11.2013 10:33, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Jaroslav,
Use fuser command to wait until file being closed is better way to do it
if fuser -s filename; then Busy; else Ready; fi
Thanks. Will try it. Currently I am rewriting such tests to java and
using stdout redirection instead.
-JB-
-Dm
Jaroslav,
Use fuser command to wait until file being closed is better way to do it
if fuser -s filename; then Busy; else Ready; fi
-Dmitry
On 2013-11-19 13:00, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> On 19.11.2013 09:45, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 18/11/2013 23:29, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>>> Could I have a revi
On 19/11/2013 09:00, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
I think it is. Writing to a file does not guarantee that it's creation
and actual write are atomic :(
What I used to do was to write the data to one file and the use a
second signaling file to notify the other party that the data has been
succes
On 19.11.2013 09:45, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 18/11/2013 23:29, Erik Gahlin wrote:
Could I have a review of this test fix.
It appears it takes more than 10 s to write to a file on slow
machines. Instead of sleeping 10 s the test now polls for the file to
appear. There may be other issues with the
On 18/11/2013 23:29, Erik Gahlin wrote:
Could I have a review of this test fix.
It appears it takes more than 10 s to write to a file on slow
machines. Instead of sleeping 10 s the test now polls for the file to
appear. There may be other issues with the test, but it's hard to know
without ru
Could I have a review of this test fix.
It appears it takes more than 10 s to write to a file on slow machines.
Instead of sleeping 10 s the test now polls for the file to appear.
There may be other issues with the test, but it's hard to know without
ruling this race out.
Thanks
Erik
Testin
12 matches
Mail list logo
