[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-924) addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15255172#comment-15255172 ] Enrico Olivelli commented on BOOKKEEPER-924: Should we address this issue

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-924) addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15255168#comment-15255168 ] Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV) commented on BOOKKEEPER-924: - Str

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-924) addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15255106#comment-15255106 ] Jia Zhai commented on BOOKKEEPER-924: - There seems an error contains the changed c

Build failed in Jenkins: bookkeeper-master-git-pullrequest #75

See Changes: [vjujjuri] BOOKKEEPER-924 Handle Spurious wakeups -- [...truncated 454 lines...] [INFO] Copying 3 resources [INFO] [INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.0:testCompile

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-924) addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15254730#comment-15254730 ] Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV) commented on BOOKKEEPER-924: - [~s

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-924) addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15254712#comment-15254712 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-924: --- GitHub user jvrao opened a pull

[jira] [Created] (BOOKKEEPER-924) addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups

Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV) created BOOKKEEPER-924: --- Summary: addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups Key: BOOKKEEPER-924 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-924

Re: addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups?

Great; May be or may be not as CountDownLatch won't allow us to set the value, you can set the value only at the object creation time. Will open a Jira and may be take care of spurious wakeups first. On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Matteo Merli wrote: > Probably SyncCounter was introduced befor

Re: addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups?

Probably SyncCounter was introduced before CountdownLatch was available in jdk. I think it should be good to switch to countdown latch. On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:28 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > I am mostly concerned about this logic in block() which makes us > susceptible to spurious wak

Re: addEntry() is susceptible to spurious wakeups?

I am mostly concerned about this logic in block() which makes us susceptible to spurious wake-ups. if (i == prev) { break; } Anyone comments? On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > LedgerHandle sync interface heavily depends o

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-919) Auditor is sometimes marking as failed a bookie switching from available to read-only mode

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-919?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15254100#comment-15254100 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-919: --- Github user eolivelli commented

Build failed in Jenkins: bookkeeper-master #1353

See -- [...truncated 401 lines...] [INFO] [INFO] [INFO] --- maven-clean-plugin:2.5:clean (default-clean) @ bookkeeper-server ---