Hi Jaroslav,
This is a good cleanup to make the test more reliable. Thanks for doing
that. I agree with David that it could be possible for the current
thread to arrive at the phaser two times at the same phase while the
test expects both threads move to the next step when both arrive.
Cyc
Hi Jaroslav,
I think your phaser usage is incorrect:
88 public void run() {
89 p.arriveAndAwaitAdvance(); // phase[1]
90 synchronized(lock1) {
91 System.out.println("[LockerThread obtained
Lock1]");
92
On 18/11/2013 11:41 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Ok, just to be sure -
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8027163/webrev.01
Minor nits ...
Missing space after for( in
test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/ProcessTools.java
+ for(Map.Entry s
BTW you should be able to simply to:
Reviewed.
/Staffan
On 18 Nov 2013, at 14:41, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
> Ok, just to be sure - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8027163/webrev.01
>
> -JB-
>
> On 18.11.2013 13:51, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> Ah! Yes.
>>
>> /S
>>
>> On 18 Nov 2013, at 13:15, Jaroslav Bachorik
>> wrote:
>
Ok, just to be sure -
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8027163/webrev.01
-JB-
On 18.11.2013 13:51, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Ah! Yes.
/S
On 18 Nov 2013, at 13:15, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
On 18.11.2013 13:06, Staffan Larsen wrote:
We don’t have solaris 32bit support any more, so please
Ah! Yes.
/S
On 18 Nov 2013, at 13:15, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
> On 18.11.2013 13:06, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> We don’t have solaris 32bit support any more, so please remove that file.
>
> In that case I will remove also solaris-i586
>
> -JB-
>
>>
>> Otherwise: looks good!
>>
>> /Staffan
On 18.11.2013 13:06, Staffan Larsen wrote:
We don’t have solaris 32bit support any more, so please remove that file.
In that case I will remove also solaris-i586
-JB-
Otherwise: looks good!
/Staffan
On 18 Nov 2013, at 13:00, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
On 18.11.2013 12:50, Staffan Larsen
We don’t have solaris 32bit support any more, so please remove that file.
Otherwise: looks good!
/Staffan
On 18 Nov 2013, at 13:00, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
> On 18.11.2013 12:50, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> Shouldn’t test/sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/solaris-sparc/launcher be
>> removed
On 18.11.2013 12:50, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Shouldn’t test/sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/solaris-sparc/launcher be
removed as part of this change?
Probably yes - if there are no 32bit solaris build hosts then it can be
removed.
-JB-
/Staffan
On 18 Nov 2013, at 11:09, Jaroslav Bachor
Shouldn’t test/sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/solaris-sparc/launcher be
removed as part of this change?
/Staffan
On 18 Nov 2013, at 11:09, Jaroslav Bachorik
wrote:
> Could I get this reviewed, please?
>
> -JB-
>
> On 4.11.2013 14:07, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> Please, review the follow
Could I get this reviewed, please?
-JB-
On 4.11.2013 14:07, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following test change:
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027163
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8027163/webrev.00/
Currently, the test is designed to work only
Hi,
after discussing this with Mandy I've rewritten the test to use the
j.u.concurrent for synchronization - this also makes it much easier to
follow the test logic.
The waited time, the blocked time and the waited counts are only checked
for sanity (increasing values) since it is not possib
12 matches
Mail list logo
