On 26 Jan 2016, at 16:36, Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris, > > Looks good, thanks for updating the test. > > One typo: > "Unexpected exist > code” D’oh. Fixed in-place. -Chris > Roger > > > > On 1/26/2016 11:27 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: >> Latest webrev updated in-place: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8148117/ >> >> >> * to execute the run method requires an appropriate permission >> * reverted any copyright changes ( leave to a bulk update ) >> * updated the test to remove the script >> >> -Chris. >> >> >> On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:23, Alan Bateman >> <alan.bate...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> On 26/01/2016 13:55, Chris Hegarty wrote: >>> >>>> It is wonderful to see the various ideas on this thread about the longer >>>> term solution to the prompt releasing of direct buffer native memory. I >>>> do not want to obstruct that ( it is very informative ), but I’d like to >>>> warp up >>>> the review on the actual moving of Cleaner. To that end, I’ve update the >>>> webrev as per Alan’s comments and suggestion ( to extend Runnable ). >>>> >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8148117/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -Chris. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> This looks okay. As a defensive-in-depth then Cleaner::run can do a >>> permission check and should ease concerns about leakage. >>> >> >> >> >
