guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-769618984
Yes! I will review it again. Thanks for hanging on there and my apologies...
Review has always been a bit overwhelming for me :)
---
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-773096994
This change looks good to me. @hachikuji could you take another look before
we merge?
This is an automated m
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-773096994
This change looks good to me. @hachikuji could you take another look before
we merge?
This is an automated m
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-822034184
@tombentley could you see if @hachikuji 's comments can be addressed? This
is a pretty tricky bug that I would like to get fixed in 3.0. Thanks!
--
This is an automated mes
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-855018136
Made another pass on the patch. LGTM! I think we can merge after resolved
the conflicts.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the mess
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-856074980
Thank YOU for the great patience @tombentley (it lasts for more than 6
months..) !
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, p
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-738579702
Hey @tombentley Sorry for the late reply! I also checked the source code of
`ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor` and I think what you've inferred is correct:
although it did not kee
guozhangwang commented on pull request #9441:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9441#issuecomment-744788568
> So you're saying that the wrong network thread handling one of these two
LeaderAndISR acquires `replicaStateChangeLock` first, right?
Sort of :) I think it is possibl