Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 11923 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2010 15:55:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 5 Oct 2010 15:55:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 81011 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2010 15:54:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 80508 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2010 15:54:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 80492 invoked by uid 99); 5 Oct 2010 15:54:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:54:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.22] (HELO thor.apache.org) (140.211.11.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:54:54 +0000 Received: from thor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o95FsXpk019206 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:54:33 GMT Message-ID: <9180832.549321286294073660.JavaMail.jira@thor> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:54:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Shai Erera (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2689) remove NativeFSLockFactory's attempt to acquire a test lock In-Reply-To: <13146677.549051286293354182.JavaMail.jira@thor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2689?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12918036#action_12918036 ] Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2689: ------------------------------------ All tests passed for me. BTW, according to the code, this method was added due to NFS cache issues, but I agree that it's useless to call makeLock just to call obtain() some time later on. It's almost as if we should make makeLock obtain the lock right away. Is there a reason why we don't do it? Is it essential to separate it into two calls? > remove NativeFSLockFactory's attempt to acquire a test lock > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-2689 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2689 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Bug > Affects Versions: 3.0.1 > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Assignee: Michael McCandless > Fix For: 3.1, 4.0 > > > NativeFSLockFactory tries to acquire a test lock the first time a lock is created. It's the only LF to do this, and, it's caused us hassle (LUCENE-2421, LUCENE-2688). > I think we should just remove it. The caller of .makeLock will presumably immediately thereafter acquire the lock and at the point hit any exception that acquireTestLock would've hit. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org