cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "T Jake Luciani (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (CASSANDRA-1661) Use of ByteBuffer limit() must account for arrayOffset()
Date Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:33:23 GMT


T Jake Luciani commented on CASSANDRA-1661:

  * A few of the loops involving direct array access (in particular the one in RandomPartitioner)
could be simplified with judicious use of mark() and get()
   *A previous version of the BB patch did exactly this, but Johnathan thought it would be
better to treat ByteBuffers as immutable so avoid changing position and mark.*

  * Adding the follow function and using it in the tests would clarify things a lot: CFSTest
looks like it exploded.
     *I agree this is a mess, if you think it should be fixed in this patch ok, but it seems
like a small issue.*

  * Converting BytesToken to ByteBuffer storage would clean up a ton of special casing (should
probably be tackled in a separate issue though)
     *I had also done this in a previous patch but it broke MerkleTree serialization*

  * ByteBufferTest is literally a test of ByteBuffers: I don't think it should be in C
     *I put it in there incase others have questions about how ByteBuffers work.*


> Use of ByteBuffer limit() must account for arrayOffset() 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-1661
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core
>    Affects Versions: 0.7.0
>            Reporter: T Jake Luciani
>            Assignee: T Jake Luciani
>             Fix For: 0.7.0
>         Attachments: 1661_v1.txt
> There are a few places in the code where it loops across a byte buffers backing array
>         for (int i=bytes.position()+bytes.arrayOffset(); i<bytes.limit(); i++)
> This is incorrect as the limit() does not account for arrayOffset()
>               for (int i=bytes.position()+bytes.arrayOffset(); i<bytes.limit()+bytes.arrayOffset();
> is the correct code.
> There is also a few places where the unit tests would fail if we used non wrapped byte

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message