Please review this small change for the bug below
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168141
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asapre/sponsorships/Ujwal/JDK-8168141/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Ujwal.
Gentle remainder
Thanks,
Ujwal.
On 11/4/2016 4:33 PM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
Please review this small change for the bug below
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168141
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asapre/sponsorships/Ujwal/JDK-8168141/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Ujwal.
Looks good.
-Harsha
On Monday 07 November 2016 09:08 PM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
Gentle remainder
Thanks,
Ujwal.
On 11/4/2016 4:33 PM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
Please review this small change for the bug below
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168141
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.ja
Hi Ujwal,
synchronized(li) {
while (li.received < 1) {
li.wait(100);
}
}
I don't see why we need while loop ?
To me it looks like you could just do:
synchronized(li) {
li.wait();
}
Since either we got notification and received must be bigger than 0.
Or
Spurious wakeups can cause wait() to finish early in which case the while loop
is needed. But the timeout to wait() doesn’t add anything. And if the while
loop is there the next statement is not needed:
112 if (li.received < 1) {
113 throw new RuntimeException("No notif rece
Thanks for the clarification on while loop.
On 11/08/2016 11:58 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Spurious wakeups can cause wait() to finish early in which case the while loop
is needed. But the timeout to wait() doesn’t add anything. And if the while
loop is there the next statement is not needed:
On 8/11/2016 8:44 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Hi Ujwal,
synchronized(li) {
while (li.received < 1) {
li.wait(100);
}
}
I don't see why we need while loop ?
You should always perform a wait() in a loop checking the condition that
is being waited upon. This guards against lost-notifi
Sorry didn't see Staffan's earlier reply :)
David
On 8/11/2016 9:23 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 8/11/2016 8:44 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Hi Ujwal,
synchronized(li) {
while (li.received < 1) {
li.wait(100);
}
}
I don't see why we need while loop ?
You should always perform a wait
Hi David,
On 11/08/2016 12:48 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry didn't see Staffan's earlier reply :)
Thanks anyways!
You should always perform a wait() in a loop checking the condition that
is being waited upon. This guards against lost-notifications and also
spurious wakeups.
If you both are
Hi,
On 11/08/2016 01:00 PM, Robbin Ehn wrote:
Lost notification, I don't see that?
Yes, sorry, I understand what you meant. (was thinking of notification
as in Notification)
Thanks!
/Robbin
Thanks for the Review, please find the new webrev incorporating the
review comments.
webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asapre/sponsorships/Ujwal/JDK-8168141/webrev.02/
-Ujwal.
On 11/8/2016 5:18 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry didn't see Staffan's earlier reply :)
David
On 8/11/2016 9:23
Looks fine to me.
Thanks,
David
On 10/11/2016 4:56 PM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
Thanks for the Review, please find the new webrev incorporating the
review comments.
webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asapre/sponsorships/Ujwal/JDK-8168141/webrev.02/
-Ujwal.
On 11/8/2016 5:18 PM, David Holme
On 11/10/2016 10:00 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Looks fine to me.
+1
Thanks for fixing!
/Robbin
Thanks,
David
On 10/11/2016 4:56 PM, Ujwal Vangapally wrote:
Thanks for the Review, please find the new webrev incorporating the
review comments.
webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asapre/sponsor
13 matches
Mail list logo
