On Mon, 2 May 2022 15:27:39 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> Please review the update to remove finalizer method in the
>> java.security.jgss module. It is one of the efforts to clean up the use of
>> finalizer method in JDK.
>
> Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request incrementally
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 05:28:39 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> src/jdk.crypto.cryptoki/unix/native/libj2pkcs11/p11_md.c line 274:
>>
>>> 272: ModuleData *moduleData = jlong_to_ptr(ckpNativeData);
>>> 273:
>>> 274: if (moduleData != NULL) {
>>
>> The check should be
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:00:18 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> > CleanerFactory is in java.base module, and does not export to
> > jdk.crypto.cryptoki module. I'm not sure if adding modules dependency is
> > good or not.
It seems fine to me to export the common Cleaner to
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:01:55 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> This is an effort to fix a problem introduced in the fix for
>> [JDK-8284368](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8284368), which
>> replaced the finalizers in jdk.crypto.cryptoki with Cleaners. However,
>> there is a
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:50:25 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update copyright year
>
> @bchristi-git showed me this test. You might try it on other objects:
>
> import
JEP 421. It also updates the relevant @SuppressWarning annotations.
>
> The CSR has been approved.
> An automated test build+test run passes cleanly (FWIW :D ).
Brent Christian has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 34 commits:
JEP 421. It also updates the relevant @SuppressWarning annotations.
>
> The CSR has been approved.
> An automated test build+test run passes cleanly (FWIW :D ).
Brent Christian has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 33 commits:
JEP 421. It also updates the relevant @SuppressWarning annotations.
>
> The CSR has been approved.
> An automated test build+test run passes cleanly (FWIW :D ).
Brent Christian has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 32 commits:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 18:06:39 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Here are the code changes for the "Deprecate finalizers in the standard Java
>> API" portion of JEP 421 ("Deprecate Finalization for Removal") for code
>> review.
>>
>> This change makes the indicated deprecations, and updates the API
Here are the code changes for the "Deprecate finalizers in the standard Java
API" portion of JEP 421 ("Deprecate Finalization for Removal") for code review.
This change makes the indicated deprecations, and updates the API spec for JEP
421. It also updates the relevant @SuppressWarning
ong with the new regtest, I added a run mode to the basic finalizer test to
> enable jfr.
> Automated testing looks good so far.
>
> Thanks,
> -Brent
Brent Christian has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Test flag should be vola
On Tue, 18 May 2021 21:40:57 GMT, Istvan Neuwirth
wrote:
>> Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a
>> finalizer is run.
>> (The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event,
>> [JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).)
>>
>> The
Please review this enhancement to add a new JFR event, generated whenever a
finalizer is run.
(The makeup is similar to the Deserialization event,
[JDK-8261160](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8261160).)
The event's only datum (beyond those common to all jfr events) is the class of
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:39:50 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/util/jar/JarFile/LargeManifestOOMTest.java line 78:
>>
>>> 76: bw.write("OOM-Test: ");
>>> 77: for (long i = 0; i < 2147483648L; i++) {
>>> 78: bw.write("a");
>>
>> As you probably
On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 14:42:21 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review and a sponsor for a fix for
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242882?
>>
>> As noted in that JBS issue, if the size of the Manifest entry in the jar
>> happens to be very large (such that it exceeds
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:09:44 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address the review comments and introduce an array size check in
>> JarFile.getBytes() method itself
>
>
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:39:20 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review and a sponsor for a fix for
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242882?
>>
>> As noted in that JBS issue, if the size of the Manifest entry in the jar
>> happens to be very large (such that it exceeds
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:06:55 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review and a sponsor for a fix for
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242882?
>
> As noted in that JBS issue, if the size of the Manifest entry in the jar
> happens to be very large (such that it exceeds
> the
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:12:58 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review and a sponsor for a fix for
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242882?
>>
>> As noted in that JBS issue, if the size of the Manifest entry in the jar
>> happens to be very large (such that it exceeds
FYI, I plan to fix this by way of:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186217
Remove erroneous @hidden JavaDoc tag from
java.util.Properties.replace(Object, Object, Object)
-Brent
On 8/14/17 10:02 AM, Brent Christian wrote:
Hi, Max
This tag snuck in by mistake. Before pushing
Hi, Max
This tag snuck in by mistake. Before pushing the fix for JDK-8029891,
we looked into ways to avoid addition of JavaDoc for all the
trivial method overrides. I tried adding @hidden tags,
but they didn't do what we wanted, so they were taken out. Except one -
sorry about that.
Brent Christian wrote:
> Mandy Chung wrote:
>>
>> I think we could take out the automatic module case as named module
>> would verify it. One refactor you can consider by separating them
>> in several @run actions.
...
I think it would make the test easier to re
On 5/9/17 4:27 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8177328/webrev.01/
Thanks for the clean up. Does each @run action need 4 mins timeout? Can it
restore to the default timeout?
Yes. Between the additional @runs and no longer testing automated
modules, I
On 5/12/17 9:11 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Minor comment:
95 private final List COMMON_ARGS;
This is an instance field and you can use lower case as the convention.
238 return !s.equals("");
You can consider using String::isEmpty.
Thanks, Mandy. I will make these
for Xcomp run,
the test would probably now be able to run for over an hour before
timing out.
I suggest making the test run faster, or seeing if there has been a
regressions in Xcomp to make test perform more poorly there.
Thanks,
-Joe
On 4/27/2017 12:08 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
Hi,
This test times
On 5/9/17 4:39 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
On 5/9/17 4:27 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8177328/webrev.01/
Can it restore to the default timeout?
Yes. Between the additional @runs and no longer testing automated
modules, I believe that should be fine
not affect test execution.)
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8177328/webrev.02/
Thanks,
-Brent
On 5/10/17 9:42 AM, Brent Christian wrote:
On 5/9/17 4:39 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
On 5/9/17 4:27 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8177328/webrev.01/
Can
Hi,
This test times out under our automated testing configurations that
include -Xcomp.
Please review my change to increase the timeout for this test. It is
sufficient for the test configurations in question to pass on two
different local machines (Mac & Linux).
diff -r 7c04ab31b4d6
On 5/1/17 12:50 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On May 1, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Brent Christian <brent.christ...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
One refactor you can consider by separating
them in several @run actions. The timeout will apply to each action
but that does not help shorten the test
29 matches
Mail list logo
