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:
112 if (li.received < 1) {
113 throw new RuntimeException("No notif received!");
Ujwal, please update webrev with the comments from Staffan above.
Thanks!
/Robbin ('r'eviewer)
On 8 Nov 2016, at 11:44, Robbin Ehn <[email protected]> wrote:
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 jtreg timed out.
/Robbin ('r'eviewer)
On 11/04/2016 12:03 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.
