On Thu, 7 May 2026 07:03:19 GMT, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes you are right. Thanks > > I note that `_jni_active_critical` does not use `Atomic::store`. > > Also note we are piggy-backing on the state changes to the thread - if we see > that the thread is handshake-safe then we must be guaranteed to see any > update to the count that happened whilst the thread was handshake-unsafe. If > we look at the count prior to that (claim_handshake) then we may see zero > incorrectly but if we get passed `can_process_handshake` then we know > examination of the count in `get_op` must return the correct value. > > But yes I can still use `Atomic::store` per the style guide. Yes, I also didn’t see a correctness issue. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30936#discussion_r3204040101
