[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR 8031701: java/lang/management/ThreadMXBean/Locks.java: Thread WaitingThread is expected to w
From:       Mandy Chung <mandy.chung () oracle ! com>
Date:       2014-01-29 15:52:59
Message-ID: 52E923DB.9090609 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On 1/29/2014 6:54 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
> Hi Mandy,
>
> On 29.1.2014 00:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>
>> The change looks okay.  I like the new assertNoLock method and as you
>> indicate in the comment in L54-55 that the thread state is dummy and not
>> verified, would it worth refactor checkBlockedObject?  The comment "//
>> #blocking#1", "// #waiting#1", etc are little confusing - maybe "phase
>> 1", "phase 2", etc?
>
> I've simplified checkBlockedObject() and modified the comments - I'm 
> using "#phase#w#1" and "#phase#b#1" to distinguish between the phases 
> during testing blocking and waiting.
> Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8031701/webrev.02 

Perhaps you should add a comment to describe the notation (no need for a 
new webrev).  Other than that, looks okay.

Good to see ThreadExecutionSynchronizer.java now goes away.  Thanks for 
following this up.
Mandy

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]