[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4030?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13547230#comment-13547230 ]
Hudson commented on HDFS-4030: ------------------------------ Integrated in Hadoop-trunk-Commit #3193 (See [https://builds.apache.org/job/Hadoop-trunk-Commit/3193/]) HDFS-4030. BlockManager excessBlocksCount and postponedMisreplicatedBlocksCount should be AtomicLongs. Contributed by Eli Collins (Revision 1430462) Result = SUCCESS eli : http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/?root=Apache-SVN&view=rev&rev=1430462 Files : * /hadoop/common/trunk/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/CHANGES.txt * /hadoop/common/trunk/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/server/blockmanagement/BlockManager.java > BlockManager excessBlocksCount and postponedMisreplicatedBlocksCount should > be AtomicLongs > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: HDFS-4030 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-4030 > Project: Hadoop HDFS > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: namenode > Affects Versions: 2.0.0-alpha > Reporter: Eli Collins > Assignee: Eli Collins > Attachments: hdfs-4030.txt, hdfs-4030.txt > > > The BlockManager excessBlocksCount and postponedMisreplicatedBlocksCount > fields are currently volatile longs which are incremented, which isn't thread > safe. It looks like they're always incremented on paths that hold the NN > write lock but it would be easier and less error prone for future changes if > we made them AtomicLongs. The other volatile long members are just set in one > thread and read in another so they're fine as is. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira