On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 06:04:36 GMT, David Holmes <dhol...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Per Liden has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Add comment > > Overall seems okay. Some comments on tests as I think the existing test logic > is quite confused in places. > > Thanks, > David > Not really. I consider pinAll should pin-all as the name implies. The > question of when to pin should be handled by the caller of pinAll. If there > were ever to be a second reason to pinAll then you would have to decide what > semantics that has: does it maintain a count, or is it like thread suspension. I would say that would not be in spirit of how the rest of this library is designed, with regards to nesting of calls. For example, `pin()/unpin()`, `suspend()/resume()`, `createNode()/deleteNode()`, etc. All these functions supports nesting, so they might just up/down a counter, instead of doing exactly what their name implies. The new `pinAll()/unpinAll()` follow the same model, which, to me, feels like the natural thing to do here. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1595
