[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Patrick Hunt updated ZOOKEEPER-59:
----------------------------------
Assignee: Mahadev konar (was: Benjamin Reed)
Status: Open (was: Patch Available)
Looks like patch _2 replaces _1? Canceling the patch for now. Please resubmit
after addressing.
See http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/HowToContribute, remember that we
are replacing (re-attaching with the same name) the patch.
> 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
> Assignee: Mahadev konar
> Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-59_1.patch, ZOOKEEPER-59_2.patch
>
>
> 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.
