new Supplier<Lock>() {
        @Override
        public Lock get() {
          return new ReentrantLock();
        }
      };

  private static final Supplier<Lock> FAIR_LOCK_SUPPLER =
      new Supplier<Lock>() {
        @Override
        public Lock get() {
          return new ReentrantLock(true);
        }
      };

  private static final Supplier<Semaphore> SEMAPHORE_SUPPLER =

      new Supplier<Lock>() {
        @Override
        public Lock get() {
          return new ReentrantLock();
        }
      };

  private static final Supplier<Lock> FAIR_LOCK_SUPPLER =
      new Supplier<Lock>() {
        @Override
        public Lock get() {
          return new ReentrantLock(true);
        }
      };

  private static final Supplier<Semaphore> SEMAPHORE_SUPPLER =

    // shutDown or runOneIteration) run concurrently with one another.
    // TODO(lukes): why don't we use ListenableFuture to sequence things? Then we could drop the
    // lock.
    private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();

    @WeakOuter
    final class Task implements Runnable {
      @Override
      public void run() {
        lock.lock();
        try {
          /*

  public ReentrantLock newReentrantLock(String lockName) {
    return newReentrantLock(lockName, false);
  }

  /**
   * Creates a {@link ReentrantLock} with the given fairness policy. The {@code lockName} is used in
   * the warning or exception output to help identify the locks involved in the detected deadlock.
   */
  public ReentrantLock newReentrantLock(String lockName, boolean fair) {

    /**
     *
     */
    private static final int SIGNATURE_OFFSET = 48;
    private static final int SIGNATURE_LENGTH = 16;
    private final Mac digest;
    private final ReentrantLock signingLock = new ReentrantLock();
    private byte[] signingKey;
    private final String algorithmName;
    private final java.security.Provider provider;
    private volatile boolean closed = false;

    /**

    // shutDown or runOneIteration) run concurrently with one another.
    // TODO(lukes): why don't we use ListenableFuture to sequence things? Then we could drop the
    // lock.
    private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();

    @WeakOuter
    final class Task implements Runnable {
      @Override
      public void run() {
        lock.lock();
        try {
          /*

import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
import org.jspecify.annotations.NullUnmarked;

/**
 * Tests for {@link Uninterruptibles}.
 *
 * @author Anthony Zana
 */
@NullUnmarked

import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReferenceArray;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable;

/**
 * A striped {@code Lock/Semaphore/ReadWriteLock}. This offers the underlying lock striping similar

   * opportunistically, just to simplify some locking and avoid separate construction.
   */
  @SuppressWarnings("serial") // This class is never serialized.
  abstract static class Segment<
          K, V, E extends InternalEntry<K, V, E>, S extends Segment<K, V, E, S>>
      extends ReentrantLock {

    /*