-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/42039/#review115467
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Ship It!

- xiaojian zhou


On Jan. 15, 2016, 1:55 a.m., Dan Smith wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/42039/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 15, 2016, 1:55 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, Ashvin A and xiaojian zhou.
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> I've taken a two prong approach to this one. I'm fixing the bug, but 
> I'm also marking setCacheLoader as deprecated for partitioned regions.
> 
> Modifying the CacheLoader using AttributesMutator had a race condition
> with partitioned regions where a bucket might never get the new cache
> loader. By getting the bucket creation lock, we ensure that the bucket
> will either read the cache loader value after it has been set or the
> cache loader modification thread will set the cache loader on the
> bucket.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> gemfire-core/src/main/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/cache/AttributesMutator.java 
> e5bfdb179615a7b82a69d7a8a7305fd709f8702c 
>   
> gemfire-core/src/main/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/internal/cache/PartitionedRegionDataStore.java
>  33bc15886060335033ffffc19e2d3fcaa82dcd0a 
>   
> gemfire-core/src/main/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/internal/cache/partitioned/PartitionedRegionObserver.java
>  6f9ce1eb886ae176b51717bc01df91a0d7a95207 
>   
> gemfire-core/src/main/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/internal/cache/partitioned/PartitionedRegionObserverAdapter.java
>  e806715b8fb6b0d97a42ddafe3962518ba0af32c 
>   
> gemfire-core/src/test/java/com/gemstone/gemfire/internal/cache/PartitionedRegionDataStoreJUnitTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42039/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dan Smith
> 
>

Reply via email to