On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:31 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 15/01/2013 7:12 AM, Rob McKenna wrote: >> >> Simple enough fix but to be honest I'm not sure any value will *always* >> work for the dead process waitFor(). Our testing infrastructure seems to >> glide past whatever we consider to be acceptable tolerances. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8005618/webrev.01/ >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Erobm/8005618/webrev.01/> > > > Using the latch seems reasonable but the existing wait/sleep times do not. > Why waitFor(10000) if the main thread is going to interrupt you after a > sleep(1000) ???
Actually, in this case it would be even safer to sleep longer, i.e. "impossibly" long, without any testing performance problem. I am tempted to clean up a bunch of those other sleeps that actually do cause performance problems, as perhaps are you.
