Github user srowen commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3661#discussion_r21591750
  
    --- Diff: 
streaming/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/streaming/ContextWaiter.scala ---
    @@ -17,30 +17,74 @@
     
     package org.apache.spark.streaming
     
    +import java.util.concurrent.{TimeoutException, TimeUnit}
    +import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock
    +import javax.annotation.concurrent.GuardedBy
    +
     private[streaming] class ContextWaiter {
    +
    +  private val lock = new ReentrantLock()
    +  private val condition = lock.newCondition()
    +
    +  @GuardedBy("lock")
       private var error: Throwable = null
    +
    +  @GuardedBy("lock")
       private var stopped: Boolean = false
     
    -  def notifyError(e: Throwable) = synchronized {
    -    error = e
    -    notifyAll()
    +  def notifyError(e: Throwable) = {
    +    lock.lock()
    +    try {
    +      error = e
    +      condition.signalAll()
    +    } finally {
    +      lock.unlock()
    +    }
       }
     
    -  def notifyStop() = synchronized {
    -    stopped = true
    -    notifyAll()
    +  def notifyStop() = {
    +    lock.lock()
    +    try {
    +      stopped = true
    +      condition.signalAll()
    +    } finally {
    +      lock.unlock()
    +    }
       }
     
    -  def waitForStopOrError(timeout: Long = -1) = synchronized {
    -    // If already had error, then throw it
    -    if (error != null) {
    -      throw error
    -    }
    +  /**
    +   * Return `true` if it's stopped; or throw the reported error if 
`notifyError` has been called; or
    +   * `false` if the waiting time detectably elapsed before return from the 
method.
    +   */
    +  def waitForStopOrError(timeout: Long = -1): Boolean = {
    +    lock.lock()
    +    try {
    +      if (timeout < 0) {
    +        while (true) {
    --- End diff --
    
    Maybe it's just me but it feels like these loops would be simpler just 
testing `while (!stopped && error == null)`? `nanos` would be tested in the 
other one too. This avoids duplication, and also avoids the unreachable return 
value, because you check these conditions in one place at the end.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org

Reply via email to