[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Flavio Paiva Junqueira updated ZOOKEEPER-59:
--------------------------------------------

    Description: 
There are two synchronized blocks locking on different objects, and to me they 
should be guarded by the same object. Here are the parts of the code I'm 
talking about:

{noformat}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
          synchronized (this) {
                outstandingRequests++;
                // check throttling
                if (zk.getInProcess() > factory.outstandingLimit) {
                    disableRecv();
                    // following lines should not be needed since we are already
                    // reading
                    // } else {
                    // enableRecv();
                }
            } 
{noformat}

{noformat}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
         synchronized (this.factory) {
                outstandingRequests--;
                // check throttling
                if (zk.getInProcess() < factory.outstandingLimit
                        || outstandingRequests < 1) {
                    sk.selector().wakeup();
                    enableRecv();
                }
            }
{noformat}

I think the second one is correct, and the first synchronized block should be 
guarded by "this.factory". 

This could be related to issue ZOOKEEPER-57, but I have no concrete indication 
that this is the case so far.

  was:
There are two synchronized blocks locking on different objects, and to me they 
should be guarded by the same object. Here are the parts of the code I'm 
talking about:

{quote}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
          synchronized (this) {
                outstandingRequests++;
                // check throttling
                if (zk.getInProcess() > factory.outstandingLimit) {
                    disableRecv();
                    // following lines should not be needed since we are already
                    // reading
                    // } else {
                    // enableRecv();
                }
            } 
{quote}

{quote}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
         synchronized (this.factory) {
                outstandingRequests--;
                // check throttling
                if (zk.getInProcess() < factory.outstandingLimit
                        || outstandingRequests < 1) {
                    sk.selector().wakeup();
                    enableRecv();
                }
            }
{quote}

I think the second one is correct, and the first synchronized block should be 
guarded by "this.factory". 

This could be related to issue ZOOKEEPER-57, but I have no concrete indication 
that this is the case so far.


> Synchronized block in NIOServerCnxn
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-59
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59
>             Project: Zookeeper
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: server
>            Reporter: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
>
> There are two synchronized blocks locking on different objects, and to me 
> they should be guarded by the same object. Here are the parts of the code I'm 
> talking about:
> {noformat}
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
>           synchronized (this) {
>                 outstandingRequests++;
>                 // check throttling
>                 if (zk.getInProcess() > factory.outstandingLimit) {
>                     disableRecv();
>                     // following lines should not be needed since we are 
> already
>                     // reading
>                     // } else {
>                     // enableRecv();
>                 }
>             } 
> {noformat}
> {noformat}
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
>          synchronized (this.factory) {
>                 outstandingRequests--;
>                 // check throttling
>                 if (zk.getInProcess() < factory.outstandingLimit
>                         || outstandingRequests < 1) {
>                     sk.selector().wakeup();
>                     enableRecv();
>                 }
>             }
> {noformat}
> I think the second one is correct, and the first synchronized block should be 
> guarded by "this.factory". 
> This could be related to issue ZOOKEEPER-57, but I have no concrete 
> indication that this is the case so far.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to