Hi all, second version, including the updated comment in ProcessImpl.c Martin requested:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8213192--(process)-change-the-process-launch-mechanism-default-on-linux-to-be-posix_spawn/webrev.01/webrev/index.html @Roger: thanks for feeding this into your tests. I still try to get it to run thru jdk-submit, but that seems to be stuck again.. Cheers, Thomas On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 10:29 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213192 > webrev: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8213192--(process)-change-the-process-launch-mechanism-default-on-linux-to-be-posix_spawn/webrev.00/webrev/index.html > > (@Roger: I hope you do not mind? The bug is assigned to you but since I > happened to play around with posix_spawn I prepared this webrev. If you > rather do this change, that is fine and I will leave it to you.) > > When we added the possibility to use posix_spawn as underlying > implementation for Runtime.exec() on Linux with > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828, we agreed to keep VFORK > as default until work on 13 starts. So now would be a good time to switch > the default to posix_spawn to get a good testing window. Note that at SAP > we run our VMs internally with posix_spawn as default since some months and > have not seen problems. > > As for the fix, I added a test which tests that the default is indeed > posix_spawn - not sure whether this is overdoing it though. Also, I use > strace for the test, and /bin/true, and while strace is usually available > and reachable by path resolution, I am afraid on some test machines it may > not. What do you think, should I leave the test out? > > The fix ran through all java/lang/ProcessBuilder jtreg tests ok. > > Thanks, Thomas > >
