> On Aug 9, 2016, at 3:52 AM, Per Liden <per.li...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > On 2016-08-09 03:25, Kim Barrett wrote: >>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Per Liden <per.li...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> I have one suggestion though, regarding CheckReferencePendingList(). While >>> reviewing I found that I had to check several times what its return value >>> actually meant, the "check" part of the name doesn't quite reveal that. >>> Further, it seems to me that the waiting path of this function has fairly >>> little in common with the non-waiting path, e.g. it always returns true. >>> So, to make both the naming and implementation more clear I'd like to >>> suggest that we split this into two separate functions, >>> HasReferencePendingList() and WaitForReferencePendingList(), like this: >> >> I was thinking about splitting things way, and ended up not doing so >> for no good reason I can think of. And it does seem clearer that way, >> so... >> >> New webrevs: >> full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/jdk.04/ >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/hotspot.04/ >> incr: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/jdk.04.inc/ >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/hotspot.04.inc/ > > Thanks for fixing, looks good.
Thanks! > > cheers, > Per > >> >>> Other than this I think the patch looks good.
