Reviewer needed: backport of "4465490: Suspicious about double-check locking idiom being used in the code" into IcedTea6 HEAD

[Andrew Hughes]

----- Original Message -----
> On 02/24/2012 05:24 PM, Pavel Tisnovsky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to push following backport "4465490: Suspicious about
> > double-check locking idiom being used in the code"
> > into IcedTea6 HEAD. This backport is the second part of fixes for
> > issue mentioned here
> > http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=882
> >
> > hg diff containing patch + Makefile.am change + NEWS change are
> > stored in an attachment.
> >
> > ChangeLog entry:
> >
> > 2012-02-24  Pavel Tisnovsky<ptisnovs at redhat.com>
> >
> >          * Makefile.am: Add new patch.
> >          * NEWS: Mention backport.
> >          *
> >          patches/openjdk/4465490-Suspicious_double-check_locking_idiom.patch:
> >          Backport of 4465490: Suspicious about double-check locking
> >          idiom being
> >          used in the code.
> >
> >
> > Could anybody review this change please?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Pavel
> 
> 
> I assume that volatile for private method which ahave alredy passed
> Oracles' review will cause no harm.
> Thanx for this, J.
> 

I second this.  It seems the right thing to do (though I haven't examined
that code in full) to make sure changes in the variable are reflected rather
than being cached.

> btw - isn't worthy to connect all three backport, which are connected
> with one purposes to one patch?
> My recommendation is yes - What do you think?

We should keep a one to one relationship between upstream and IcedTea patches
so they can be easily deleted when upstreamed.  What is the upstream status
of this patch, as regards OpenJDK6?

> 
> 
> 

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

PGP Key: 248BDC07 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F  8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07