On 16/01/2014 5:37 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review this simple fix, the test needs more time to wait
Phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(...).
Integer.MAX_VALUE? There's no point using a timed form at all.
David
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sjiang/JDK-8029378/00/
bug:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Volker Simonis
volker.simo...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.comwrote:
On 15/01/2014 06:24, David Holmes wrote:
I'm not a fan of runtime checks of this kind though if it is only a very
samll number of
On 16/01/2014 09:38, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Alan,
I think sun.nio.ch.IOUtil seems even more appropriate to me for these
constants. What do you think?
Would it be OK for you if I initialize them right in the static
initializer of IOUtil based on os.name http://os.name or do you
prefer
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
On 16/01/2014 09:38, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Alan,
I think sun.nio.ch.IOUtil seems even more appropriate to me for these
constants. What do you think?
Would it be OK for you if I initialize them right in the
David Holmes wrote:
On 16/01/2014 5:37 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review this simple fix, the test needs more time to wait
Phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(...).
Integer.MAX_VALUE? There's no point using a timed form at all.
David
Yes Phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(int phase) could
Staffan,
I've missed to rename toolArgs in JcmdBase.java.
The webrev with changes can be found here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser/7185591/webrev.03
If it looks good, could you please be my sponsor and push the changes?
The patch is attached to this mail.
Thanks,
Katja
On
On 16.1.2014 11:48, shanliang wrote:
David Holmes wrote:
On 16/01/2014 5:37 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review this simple fix, the test needs more time to wait
Phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(...).
Integer.MAX_VALUE? There's no point using a timed form at all.
David
Yes
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 16.1.2014 11:48, shanliang wrote:
David Holmes wrote:
On 16/01/2014 5:37 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review this simple fix, the test needs more time to wait
Phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(...).
Integer.MAX_VALUE? There's no point using a timed form at
Thanks - just need that second reviewer then...
On 13/01/14 12:38, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Looks good! Thanks for taking the time to re-write the test in Java.
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 8 jan 2014, at 15:59, Kevin Walls kevin.wa...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Staffan -
On 16/01/2014 9:01 PM, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 16.1.2014 11:48, shanliang wrote:
David Holmes wrote:
On 16/01/2014 5:37 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review this simple fix, the test needs more time to wait
Phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(...).
Integer.MAX_VALUE?
David Holmes wrote:
On 16/01/2014 9:01 PM, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 16.1.2014 11:48, shanliang wrote:
David Holmes wrote:
On 16/01/2014 5:37 PM, shanliang wrote:
Hi,
Please review this simple fix, the test needs more time to wait
Phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(...).
On 16/01/2014 10:34, Volker Simonis wrote:
:
I just thought because poll is more file-descriptor oriented and not
network specific. And the constants are also used for example in:
src/macosx/classes/sun/nio/ch/KQueueArrayWrapper.java:
src/solaris/classes/sun/nio/ch/sctp/Sctp*
12 matches
Mail list logo
