On 4/10/2014 8:42 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: > The code change looks harmless, but I am not sure how it could provide > more information next time. > Next time, with accept timeout and read timeout, we would know on which point the threads is more easier to get timeout.
Xuelei > --Max > > > On 4/10/2014 20:17, Xuelei Fan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please review this test case update: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8037557/webrev.00/ >> >> This is a test timeout issue. Cause is still unknown. I guess that one >> or more of the server threads had not yet been scheduled to run by the >> system within the timeout of the testing. I added more timeout in the >> code. Hope next time timeout failure, we can get more information. >> >> Thanks, >> Xuelei >>
