Looks good! Thanks, /Staffan
On 18 dec 2013, at 10:01, Jaroslav Bachorik <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks! > > On 17.12.2013 14:25, Staffan Larsen wrote: >> line 156: I think this should be: "testOk = false;” > > Fixed. > >> >> in checkBlocked(): after the loop, I don’t think you have get the block >> count again and check it. If you get here, the test has failed. > > While it may, theoretically, happen that the blocked count suddenly gets > refreshed even though it was stalled for 10 seconds before, it doesn't sound > very realistic. I'm removing the after-the-loop check. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8029890/webrev.02 > > -JB- > >> >> /Staffan >> >> >> On 17 dec 2013, at 11:53, Jaroslav Bachorik <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 17.12.2013 11:50, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: >>>> Please, review the following test fix. >>>> >>>> Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029890 >>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8029809/webrev.00 >>> >>> Sorry, the correct webrev is >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8029890/webrev.00 >>> >>>> >>>> The test fails intermittently due to ThreadMXBean.getThreadInfo() >>>> blocking the tested thread from time to time. The solution is not to >>>> invoke this method from within the tested thread and, in order to make >>>> the test more readable and maintainable, replace the >>>> ThreadExecutionSynchronizer with the standard j.u.c.Phaser. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -JB- >>> >> >
