You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There is a subtle race condition in UpdateService.
As soon as the alarm is set on 107, there is a race between the current thread entering its synchronized block first (and executing 110) and the new thread entering its synchronized block (and evaluating the condition on line 60).
Currently, you get lucky and avoid the issue by virtue of scheduling the alarm far into the future. However, if you shorten the time until the next update, this race will be increasingly exposed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
thanks, I'll take a look
On Dec 30, 2012 6:06 PM, "powerofpi" [email protected] wrote:
There is a subtle race condition in UpdateService.
As soon as the alarm is set on 107, there is a race between the current
thread entering its synchronized block first (and executing 110) and the
new thread entering its synchronized block (and evaluating the condition on
line 60).
Currently, you get lucky and avoid the issue by virtue of scheduling the
alarm far into the future. However, if you shorten the time until the next
update, this race will be increasingly exposed.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/3.
There is a subtle race condition in UpdateService.
As soon as the alarm is set on 107, there is a race between the current thread entering its synchronized block first (and executing 110) and the new thread entering its synchronized block (and evaluating the condition on line 60).
Currently, you get lucky and avoid the issue by virtue of scheduling the alarm far into the future. However, if you shorten the time until the next update, this race will be increasingly exposed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: