[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9980?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13779605#comment-13779605
]
Junping Du commented on HADOOP-9980:
------------------------------------
Hi [~cnauroth], thanks for your comments and your reference here. In my
understanding, this is a trade-off between either to remove volatile on
modification (getting rid of wrong expectation) or to add atomic increment
(improving visibility of modification between threads) there, and most of us
prefer the former choice. Isn't it? Is so, shall we remove the volatile on
modification on LightWeightHashSet and LightWeightLinkedSet? If so, I will
rename this JIRA to get rid of volatile in LWHSet and LWLSet and deliver a
patch soon. How does it sounds like?
> LightWeightGSet's modification field should be volatile so that detect
> changes by other thread in iteration.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-9980
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9980
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: util
> Reporter: Junping Du
> Assignee: Junping Du
> Fix For: 2.3.0
>
> Attachments: HADOOP-9980.patch
>
>
> LightWeightGSet should have a volatile modification field (like:
> LightWeightHashSet or LightWeightLinkedSet) that is used to detect updates
> while iterating so they can throw a ConcurrentModificationException.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
