On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:03:32 GMT, Patricio Chilano Mateo <pchilanom...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Yes, the elist comment was related to the other issue. The reason why I > didn't explicitly added this check is because it will we done in the > suspend/resume call already (while holding the handshake lock which > serializes the suspend/resume requests). So inside the suspend handshake for > example either the target is suspended, so nothing is done, or the target is > not suspended and we suspend it. Is there an actual issue I'm missing or is > this to make a fast check and avoid the call? In any case I added the check. > Also I see the specs for the single suspend/resume functions say the same > thing about not changing the state and, for example, in SuspendThreadList we > are also not making an explicit check before the call to suspend_thread(). So > if there is an actual issue here, don't we need to add that check for them > too? I agree with your analysis. And you are right on the `SuspendThreadList` as well. The `SuspendThreadList` also return an error code of each suspend in the result array. It'd be nice to add a check there as well to make it consistent but I'd suggest to be conservative here and leave it as it is now. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12512
