On 8/31/16 2:20 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hello,
Please review new webrev incorporating nits form Daniel.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.03/
Replies below.
-Harsha
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 01:47 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 8/29/16 8:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hello,
Please review new webrev incorporating nits form Daniel.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.03/
-Harsha
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 01:47 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 8/29/16 8:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 30/08/2016 9:08 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 8/23/16 6
On 8/29/16 8:51 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 30/08/2016 9:08 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 8/23/16 6:17 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
You approach to waiter object is a neat little abstraction and I will
make it a point to use it in future fixes, if required.
revised webrev : htt
On 30/08/2016 1:52 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
David,
Does accessing under synchronization lock guarantee visibility to
variable modifications?
Yes. As long as all accesses to the variable are with the
synchronization lock held then you are guaranteed to see all changes.
volatile is only n
David,
Does accessing under synchronization lock guarantee visibility to
variable modifications?
-Harsha
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 08:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 30/08/2016 9:08 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 8/23/16 6:17 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
You approach to waite
On 30/08/2016 9:08 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 8/23/16 6:17 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
You approach to waiter object is a neat little abstraction and I will
make it a point to use it in future fixes, if required.
revised webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webre
On 8/23/16 6:17 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
You approach to waiter object is a neat little abstraction and I will
make it a point to use it in future fixes, if required.
revised webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.02/
test/java/lang/management/ThreadMXBean/Lock
Hello All,
Could I get review from one more Reviewer?
Thanks
Harsha
On Wednesday 24 August 2016 10:07 AM, harsha.wardhan...@oracle.com wrote:
Thanks David.
Harsha
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:55 AM +0530, "David Holmes"
mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>> wrote:
On 23/08/2016 10:17 PM
Thanks David.
Harsha
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 6:55 AM +0530, "David Holmes"
wrote:
On 23/08/2016 10:17 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> You approach to waiter object is a neat little abstraction and I will
> make it a point to use it in future fixes, if required.
On 23/08/2016 10:17 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
You approach to waiter object is a neat little abstraction and I will
make it a point to use it in future fixes, if required.
Note it only works for a single waiting thread. :)
revised webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/
Hi David,
You approach to waiter object is a neat little abstraction and I will
make it a point to use it in future fixes, if required.
revised webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.02/
On Tuesday 23 August 2016 11:47 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Harsha,
On 22/08/2016 6:48 PM
Hi Harsha,
On 22/08/2016 6:48 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hello,
Please review the below webrev incorporating David's comments.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.01/
Using a static isNotified field isn't exactly what I had in mind, I was
thinking of something more encapsulated
Hello,
Please review the below webrev incorporating David's comments.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.01/
Regards
Harsha
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 11:45 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
I will incorporate changes suggested by you. Let's wait for few more
review comm
Hi David,
I will incorporate changes suggested by you. Let's wait for few more
review comments and then I will send consolidated webrev.
Regards
Harsha
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:02 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 16/08/2016 11:33 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
Agreed that we could
On 16/08/2016 11:33 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hi David,
Agreed that we could fix WaitingThread the way you have said, but in
recent past, there aren't any issues reported w.r.t WaitingThread.
Nor are there likely to be - that's what makes spurious wakeup bugs so
difficult to detect!
Thi
Hi David,
Agreed that we could fix WaitingThread the way you have said, but in
recent past, there aren't any issues reported w.r.t WaitingThread.
This test has been fixed several times (3-4) for intermittent failures
and hence I would not like to meddle with code that is not causing any
prob
Hi Harsha,
On 16/08/2016 4:08 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
Hello,
Please review and provide comments for fix for issue,
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152589
having webrev located at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.00/
These changes look quite good (though I have t
Hello,
Please review and provide comments for fix for issue,
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152589
having webrev located at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hb/8152589/webrev.00/
Fix details:
1. From nightly failures we see that LockThreadB was blocked on wrong
object. We now do a rep
18 matches
Mail list logo
