On 10/29/2011 1:04 PM, Bradford Wetmore wrote: > Looks good. As you may remember, my personal preference is to use lots > of parens to clearly show what you intended, but up to you as it's > pretty clear without > > return ((block != null) && (mac != null) && > (block[0] == (byte)0xFF) && (block[1] == (byte)0xFF) && > ... > > I'd ask for a test case, but it might take a while to run. ;) > Quite a while, it would require a few weeks (even years) at least to reach a huge record sequence number on a normal computer. I don't think we are patient enough to observe the test result. ;-)
Thanks for the review. Xuelei > Brad > > > > > > On 10/28/2011 8:00 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Would you please review my fix for 7106277 (Brokenness in the >> seqNumberOverflow of MAC)? >> >> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/7106277/webrev.00/ >> >> Thanks, >> Xuelei