On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 12:18:10 GMT, serhiysachkov <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> switching to nanoTime as suggested in ticket comments
>
> serhiysachkov has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> 8281511: update check timeout logic to take into account lower bound as
> mentioned in review discussion
We do not need the nano-second precision. Using millis makes for more readable
logs.
test/jdk/java/net/ipv6tests/UdpTest.java line 149:
> 147: }
> 148: final long expectedTimeInNanos = TimeUnit.SECONDS.toNanos(4);
> 149: checkIfTimeOut(System.nanoTime() - t1, expectedTimeInNanos);
Suggestion:
final long expectedTime = TimeUnit.SECONDS.toMillis(4);
checkIfTimeOut(TimeUnit.NANOS.toMillis(System.nanoTime() - t1),
expectedTime);
test/jdk/java/net/ipv6tests/UdpTest.java line 162:
> 160: } catch (SocketTimeoutException e) {
> 161: }
> 162: checkIfTimeOut(System.nanoTime() - t1, expectedTimeInNanos);
Suggestion:
checkIfTimeOut(TimeUnit.NANOS.toMillis(System.nanoTime() - t1),
expectedTime);
test/jdk/java/net/ipv6tests/UdpTest.java line 182:
> 180: s1.receive (new DatagramPacket (new byte [128], 128));
> 181: final long startTimeInNanos = TimeUnit.SECONDS.toNanos(2);
> 182: checkIfTimeOut(System.nanoTime() - t1, startTimeInNanos);
Suggestion:
final long startTime = TimeUnit.SECONDS.toMillis(2);
checkIfTimeOut(TimeUnit.NANOS.toMillis(System.nanoTime() - t1),
startTime);
-------------
PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23840#pullrequestreview-2657858917
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23840#discussion_r1979607848
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23840#discussion_r1979612362
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23840#discussion_r1979619337
