On 18 feb 2014, at 13:09, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Staffan,
>
> If you get a spurious wakeup from wait():
>
> 151 try {
> 152 synchronized (bkptSignal) {
> 153 bkptSignal.wait(5000);
> 154 }
> 155 } catch (InterruptedException ee) {
> 156 }
> 157 if (prevBkptCount == bkptCount) {
> 158 failure("failure: test hung");
>
> you could report failure. But that is far less likely than the current
> problem using sleep.
Right. Adding “continue;” inside the catch(InterruptedException) block should
guard against that.
/Staffan
>
> David
>
> On 18/02/2014 8:19 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> Still looking for Reviewer for this change.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /Staffan
>>
>> On 11 feb 2014, at 15:12, Staffan Larsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Updated the test to use proper synchronization and notification between
>>> threads. Should be more stable and much faster.
>>>
>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6952105
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/6952105/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> /Staffan
>>
