On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 02:24:43 GMT, liach <d...@openjdk.java.net> wrote:
>> Upon review of [8261407](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261407), >> by design, duplicate initialization of ReflectionFactory should be safe as >> it performs side-effect-free property read actions, and the suggesting of >> making the `initted` field volatile cannot prevent concurrent initialization >> either; however, having `initted == true` published without the other >> fields' values is a possibility, which this patch addresses. >> >> This simulates what's done in `CallSite`'s constructor for >> `ConstantCallSite`. Please feel free to point out the problems with this >> patch, as I am relatively inexperienced in this field of fences and there >> are relatively less available documents. (Thanks to >> https://shipilev.net/blog/2014/on-the-fence-with-dependencies/) > > liach has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a > rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by > the merge/rebase. The pull request contains seven additional commits since > the last revision: > > - use peter's model of separate data object > - Merge branch 'master' into 8261407-reflectionfactory > - Include the stable annotation > - Merge branch 'master' into 8261407-reflectionfactory > - Merge branch '8261407-reflectionfactory' > - Just use volatile directly to ensure read order > - 8261407: ReflectionFactory.checkInitted() is not thread-safe Updated per suggestion of peter and mandy. Requesting another round of review. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6889
