----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34965/#review86460 -----------------------------------------------------------
This may be hard to do in a unit test, but can you check if it's feasible to write a test case? core/src/main/scala/kafka/consumer/SimpleConsumer.scala <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34965/#comment138488> Why not simply modify the close method to disconnect outside the synchronized block? Not that I feel very strongly, I'm curious. core/src/main/scala/kafka/consumer/SimpleConsumer.scala <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34965/#comment138486> I think this needs to be volatile or AtomicBoolean - Aditya Auradkar On June 2, 2015, 11:54 p.m., Dong Lin wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/34965/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 2, 2015, 11:54 p.m.) > > > Review request for kafka. > > > Bugs: KAFKA-2241 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2241 > > > Repository: kafka > > > Description > ------- > > KAFKA-2241; AbstractFetcherThread.shutdown() should not block on > ReadableByteChannel.read(buffer) > > > Diffs > ----- > > core/src/main/scala/kafka/consumer/SimpleConsumer.scala > 31a2639477bf66f9a05d2b9b07794572d7ec393b > core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/AbstractFetcherThread.scala > 83fc47417dd7fe4edf030217fa7fd69d99b170b0 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34965/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Dong Lin > >
