Daniel, David
Thanks for the review :-)
-Ujwal
On 4/18/2017 5:39 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 18/04/2017 8:39 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
On 18/04/2017 05:20, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Ujwal,
On 14/04/2017 4:25 PM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
Please review this small change
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130084
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~uvangapally/webrev/2017/8130084/webrev.00/
I agree with Daniel this makes the test less susceptible to spurious
timeouts and will instead only be timed-out by the test harness.
Hi David,
One additional comment though is that it now seems to serve no point to
create a separate thread to do the work. ??
AFAICS the test attempts to tease the JMX notification logic to
produce a deadlock. I believe we would have to go back to the original
bug description and make a careful analysis of the original issue
to assert whether or not creating that thread was integral to
the issue being tested (or if it was just a way to not wait
infinitely).
You are absolutely right - it does need the second thread to ensure
there is no deadlock.
Thanks,
David
-----
So all in all I think I'm more comfortable with not removing that
thread and leaving the fix as it is ;-)
best regards,
-- daniel
Thanks,
David
