2015-09-15 22:28 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > > Sounds like a false positive to me. There are numerous implicit > synchronizations in the above sequence, so the volatile is not particularly > useful (but it's not terribly expensive either). > > Thanks. I'll revert that fix and resolve it as invalid. > > OTOH since you're in that section, the TCK prefers if the background check for session expiration is run once per second. How epensive is it ? It would make that algorithm a lot simpler.
Rémy
