Hi Lucy, FWIW: I ran a build on AIX and this looks ok.
I also assume in your final version you'll update all copyright years where it's not 2016 yet? Other than that the changes look ok to me - but I'm neither a reviewer nor a deep expert in the area of your changes. Best regards Christoph > -----Original Message----- > From: nio-dev [mailto:nio-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Lu, > Yingqi > Sent: Freitag, 30. September 2016 18:55 > To: Lu, Yingqi <yingqi...@intel.com>; Alan Bateman > <alan.bate...@oracle.com>; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > Cc: nio-...@openjdk.java.net; Kaczmarek, Eric <eric.kaczma...@intel.com>; > Kharbas, Kishor <kishor.khar...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: Proposal for adding O_DIRECT support into JDK 9 > > Hi All, > > Please find the most recent version of the patch available at > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igraves/8164900-2/ > > In this version, we have following two changes: > > 1. Move O_DIRECT flag from StandardOpenOption to ExtendedOpenOption > 2. Move the checks of O_DIRECT from native code to Java code. > > Please let us know your feedback. > > Thanks, > Lucy > > -----Original Message----- > From: nio-dev [mailto:nio-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Lu, > Yingqi > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 9:57 AM > To: Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com>; core-libs- > d...@openjdk.java.net > Cc: nio-...@openjdk.java.net > Subject: RE: Proposal for adding O_DIRECT support into JDK 9 > > Alan, > > Thank you for the explanation, we will modify the code accordingly and send it > out soon for review. > > Thanks, > Lucy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Bateman [mailto:alan.bate...@oracle.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:45 AM > To: Lu, Yingqi <yingqi...@intel.com>; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > Cc: nio-...@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Proposal for adding O_DIRECT support into JDK 9 > > On 26/09/2016 19:50, Lu, Yingqi wrote: > > > Alan, you mean readv0/write0 or read0/write0? I just want to make sure > > :-) > Apologies, I meant each of the native methods where the decision to use direct > I/O or not would be a lot more maintainable in Java. You'll see that there are > already code paths for direct vs. heap buffers. > > > > > > Anyone else has other opinions on where is the best home for O_DIRECT flag? > The flags under jdk.unsupported will eventually be removed in the future JDK > release? > > > > If we agree ExtendedOpenOpen is the best home for O_DIRECT, we can > modify that for sure. > > > I think ExtendedOpenOption is the right place. It's still TDB as to whether > to put > these extensions but that should be transparent to anyone using this when on > the class path. > > -Alan
