Thanks Staffan, your change is exactly what I (blindly) did in my updated webrev. I will get David's comments in, respin some tests and publish the update.
-Aleksey. On 11.11.2014 11:03, Staffan Larsen wrote: > I was able to provoke the failure with a “jstack -F”. I think this patch > solves the > problem: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8059677-thread.name.sa.patch > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esla/8059677-thread.name.sa.patch>. Feel > free to not include the changes in StackTrace.java if you don’t want to > complicate your review. > > Thanks, > /Staffan > > >> On 10 nov 2014, at 19:09, Aleksey Shipilev >> <aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com <mailto:aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com>> wrote: >> >> On 10.11.2014 19:39, Staffan Larsen wrote: >>>> On 10 nov 2014, at 15:55, Aleksey Shipilev >>>> <aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com <mailto:aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com>> >>>> wrote: >>>> Ow, it seems very like it. >>>> So, what testlist have I missed to catch this? >>> >>> Probably vm.tmtools.testlist and/or nsk.sajdi.testlist. Just a >>> warning that these tests are far from stable. Sorry about that. >> >> Alas, both these testlists pass with current change without a hitch. >> That probably tells something about the test coverage. Any other ideas >> how to test for it? Maybe some manual way? >> >> Anyhow, there is a synonymous block in ThreadGroup handling, I can copy >> the relevant bits from there. Updated webrev follows soon. Still need to >> test if that change is safe. >> >> -Aleksey. >> >
