On 10/29/2011 1:04 PM, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
> Looks good. As you may remember, my personal preference is to use lots
> of parens to clearly show what you intended, but up to you as it's
> pretty clear without
>
> return ((block != null) && (mac != null) &&
> (block[0] == (byte)0xFF) && (block[1] == (byte)0xFF) &&
> ...
>
> I'd ask for a test case, but it might take a while to run. ;)
>
Quite a while, it would require a few weeks (even years) at least to
reach a huge record sequence number on a normal computer. I don't think
we are patient enough to observe the test result. ;-)
Thanks for the review.
Xuelei
> Brad
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/28/2011 8:00 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would you please review my fix for 7106277 (Brokenness in the
>> seqNumberOverflow of MAC)?
>>
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/7106277/webrev.00/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xuelei
