Request for review: 7191777: test/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/ failing intermittently due to additions for 4244896

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at
Fri Aug 17 11:46:45 UTC 2012

On 16/08/2012 21:53, David Holmes wrote:
> On 17/08/2012 2:33 AM, Rob McKenna wrote:
>> Sounds good:
>> <> 
> I think we would want the non-timed version of waitFor. Otherwise the 
> default timeout will never kick in (unless the timing aspect of 
> waitFor is broken). Hmmm - can't test two things at once. See what 
> Alan says. :)
Alan says we should not spend too much time on this :-)

I think what is in the webrev is fine. This part of the test is 
exercising the waitFor(timeout) method so I'd leave it at that. If 
nothing else it exercises the code for the case where the process is 
terminating at just around the time that the waitFor(timeout) method is 


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list