private volatile @Nullable Logger logger;

  LazyLogger(Class<?> ownerOfLogger) {
    this.loggerName = ownerOfLogger.getName();
  }

  Logger get() {
    /*
     * We use double-checked locking. We could the try racy single-check idiom, but that would
     * depend on Logger not contain mutable state.
     *
     * We could use Suppliers.memoizingSupplier here, but I micro-optimized to this implementation

   * MoreExecutors#newDirectExecutorService} and subject to the same constraints.
   *
   * <p>Although all tasks are immediately executed in the thread that submitted the task, this
   * {@code ExecutorService} imposes a small locking overhead on each task submission in order to
   * implement shutdown and termination behavior.
   *
   * <p>Because of the nature of single-thread execution, the methods {@code scheduleAtFixedRate}

    exec.awaitTermination(100, MILLISECONDS);
  }

  /**
   * Tests that all listeners complete, even if they were added before or after the future was
   * finishing. Also acts as a concurrency test to make sure the locking is done correctly when a
   * future is finishing so that no listeners can be lost.
   */
  public void testAllListenersCompleteSuccessfully()
      throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {

     * for (Lock lock : locks) {
     *   lock.unlock();
     * }
     *
     * If we only held the int[] stripes, translating it on the fly to L's, the original locks might
     * be garbage collected after locking them, ending up in a huge mess.
     */
    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") // we carefully replaced all keys with their respective L's
    List<L> asStripes = (List<L>) result;

   * </ul>
   *
   * A specific warning about locking: Code that executes user-supplied tasks, such as {@code
   * ListenableFuture} listeners, should take care not to do so while holding a lock. Additionally,
   * as a further line of defense, prefer not to perform any locking inside a task that will be run

      return "Ordering.arbitrary()";
    }

    /*
     * We need to be able to mock identityHashCode() calls for tests, because it
     * can take 1-10 seconds to find colliding objects. Mocking frameworks that
     * can do magic to mock static method calls still can't do so for a system
     * class, so we need the indirection. In production, Hotspot should still

    // way for it to return a false negative would be for the target value to jump around in the map
    // such that none of the subsequent iterations observed it, despite the fact that at every point
    // in time it was present somewhere int the map. This becomes increasingly unlikely as
    // CONTAINS_VALUE_RETRIES increases, though without locking it is theoretically possible.

   * uncommon to specify {@code concurrencyLevel(1)} in order to achieve more deterministic eviction
   * behavior.
   *
   * <p>Note that future implementations may abandon segment locking in favor of more advanced
   * concurrency controls.
   *
   * @return this {@code CacheBuilder} instance (for chaining)
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code concurrencyLevel} is nonpositive

                // this is so damn unreliable, needs another race-prone query if required
                haveAttributes = false;

                // This seems to be the only way to obtain a reliable (with respect to locking) file size here
                // It is more critical than other attributes because append mode depends on it.
                // We do only really care if we open for writing and not shared for writing

    /*
     * TODO(cpovirk): move ForwardingTestCase somewhere common, and use it to
     * test the forwarded methods
     */
  }

  @AndroidIncompatible // Mocking ExecutorService is forbidden there. TODO(b/218700094): Don't mock.
  public void testListeningDecorator_noWrapExecuteTask() {
    ExecutorService delegate = mock(ExecutorService.class);