[echo] ## Executing C unit test: test_ti_instrum
[exec] Result: 1
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_all_threads start
[echo] ERROR: Assertion '(thread_count)==(i +
initial_thread_count)' failed at /home/geir/dev/apache/harmony/
enhanced/trunk/working_vm/vm/tes
ts/unit/thread/test_ti_instrum.c:94
[echo] Init1: initial_thread_count=1, initial_all_threads_count=1
[echo] Init3: initial_thread_count=1, initial_all_threads_count=1
[echo] Init3: thread_count=3, all_threads_count=3
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_all_threads: FAILED
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_thread_count start
[echo] Init1: initial_thread_count=3, initial_all_threads_count=3
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_thread_count: PASSED
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_blocked_count start
[echo] INFO: TEST test_jthread_get_blocked_count: PASSED
[echo] ## TEST FAILED
On Oct 9, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
> I put debug printing into test_ti_instrum.c and attached it to JIRA.
> Could you run it on your machine and send me console output.
>
> Evgueni
>
> On 10/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
>>
>> test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at
>> test_ti_instrum.c:80
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
>>
>> > While running cunit on Linux it turned out one test case fails some
>> > time. The fix is in tests.final.2.patch.
>> >
>> > So the last versions to be committed:
>> > invocation_api.final.patch
>> > build.final.2.patch
>> > tests.final.2.patch
>> >
>> > Evgueni
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I mahaged to resolve the problem on Linux.... will update
>> >> build.final.patch with build.final.2.patch in a while
>> >>
>> >> On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh! Ooh! I did that..... I passed cunit, somke, kernel tests on
>> >> > Windows and smoke, kernel tests on Linux. Unfortunately I
>> failed to
>> >> > link cunit tests on Linux so far. So I disabled cunit on Linux
>> >> until
>> >> > the problem is solved. I believe it is acceptable as short term
>> >> > solution. I found several problems in cunit tests. I will come
>> >> up with
>> >> > my findings later (not today).
>> >> >
>> >> > Use latest patches from HARMONY-1582. They are marked as final.
>> >> There
>> >> > are three patches. One for build module, one for cunit tests and
>> >> one
>> >> > for VM itself.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> > Evgueni
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 10/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > Nooooooo! LOL
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I'm here waiting - This will unblock a whole bunch of
>> things :)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks for the effort
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
>> >> > > > Geir,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > That's terrible. We have power outage....servers are down. I
>> >> can't
>> >> > > > send the patches now.... will do it tomorrow
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Evgueni
>> >> > > > On 10/5/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> woo hoo! here we go...
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
>> >> > > >> > Hi Evgueni,
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> Hi All,
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should
>> >> resolve remain
>> >> > > >> >> concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Thanks for updating the patch! I agree it it can be
>> >> committed, at
>> >> > > >> > least signatures look good. 5 revisions seem like more
>> >> than enough :).
>> >> > > >> > Anyways, I think the remaining issues can be resolved
>> >> with additional
>> >> > > >> > patches. Thanks again for the good work and your
>> patience.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> > Andrey.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> Evgueni
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > Andrey,
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > I see your points. I think both approaches have
>> >> advantages and
>> >> > > >> >> > disadvantages. I think it is quite hard to say which
>> >> approach is
>> >> > > >> >> > better until we play with one VM only. I still feel
>> >> like introducing
>> >> > > >> >> > one more dependence is better than spreading code
>> >> which deals with
>> >> > > >> >> > attachment among VM and TM. We really get stuck. OK,
>> >> just because I
>> >> > > >> >> > want to move forward I will do required changes to
>> remove
>> >> > > >> >> > vm_create_jthread from TM. I believe that will resolve
>> >> all our
>> >> > > >> >> > disagreements and the patch will be applied soon.
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> > Evgueni.
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > On 10/4/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > On 10/3/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > On 10/3/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Andrey,
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Just to be clear.... I agree with you it is
>> more
>> >> > > >> convenient if
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of
>> JavaVM. It
>> >> > > >> reflects that
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > current thread has been attached already. Do
>> >> you think it
>> >> > > >> >> makes sense
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > to get rid of JNIEnv and use
>> >> jthread_get_JNI_env in that
>> >> > > >> case?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > The jthread_* layer is designed like if it were
>> >> a regular JNI
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > application which is meant to be called from the
>> >> Java code,
>> >> > > >> hence
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > every function on that layer receives JNIenv. We
>> >> can probably
>> >> > > >> >> get rid
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > of the JNEnv parameter for jthread_* functions,
>> >> assuming that
>> >> > > >> >> TM can
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > always extract JNIenv for the current thread
>> with
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env().
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > My only concern would be the performance - once
>> >> the JNIenv is
>> >> > > >> >> already
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > known for the native part of the kernel classes
>> >> impl, it
>> >> > > >> must be
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > cheaper to pass JNIEnv to TM as an extra
>> >> parameter rather than
>> >> > > >> >> extract
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > it from the TLS again.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Other than that, I see no strong advantages in
>> >> keeping JNIEnv
>> >> > > >> >> parameter.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Regarding jthread_attach. I still didn't get
>> >> your point....
>> >> > > >> >> Clarify it
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > please if you think jhread_attach should be
>> >> modified.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Sorry for being not clear: I think for
>> >> jthread_attach, we have
>> >> > > >> >> two options:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > 1) Make JNIEnv input parameter - it must be new
>> >> JNIEnv that VM
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > pre-allocates for the new Java thread.
>> >> jthread_attach
>> >> > > >> would just
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > associate it with the current thread.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > 2) Obtain JNIEnv via vm_attach() callback. In
>> >> this case, if
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > vm_attach() callback implementation needs to
>> >> know for which
>> >> > > >> >> JavaVM new
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > JNIenv has to be allocated, then we'll need to
>> >> add JavaVM as
>> >> > > >> >> input
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > parameter for jthread_attach().
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > I think both options should be fine, (1) would
>> >> probably
>> >> > > >> keep TM
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > interface a bit lighter, though (2) may look
>> >> more closer to
>> >> > > >> >> the JNI
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > invocation API idea.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > So I think adding JavaVM specifically for
>> >> jthread_attach
>> >> > > >> may make
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > sense given the explanation you provided
>> earlier.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > The concern I would have regarding the proposed
>> >> jthread_attach
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > implementation is a call to vm_create_jthread()
>> >> - this call
>> >> > > >> >> introduces
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > an extra dependency of TM on vmcore that I'd
>> >> prefer to be
>> >> > > >> >> avoided. In
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > the original version, jthread_attach() was
>> >> taking jthread
>> >> > > >> >> argument of
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > the already prepared j.l.Thread.
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > I understand your concern. Unfortunately I don't
>> >> see what we
>> >> > > >> can do
>> >> > > >> >> > > > here. Let me explain. In the beginning you have an
>> >> unattached
>> >> > > >> >> native
>> >> > > >> >> > > > thread. To be able to call java code (which is
>> >> required for
>> >> > > >> >> > > > constructing j.l.Thread instance) the thread
>> >> should be attached
>> >> > > >> >> first.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > To be specific it should be attached to VM by
>> >> calling vm_attach
>> >> > > >> >> which
>> >> > > >> >> > > > will return a valid JNIEnv It is valid to use JNI
>> >> from that
>> >> > > >> moment.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > Obtained JNIEnv can be used to execute java code
>> >> and create
>> >> > > >> >> j.l.Thread
>> >> > > >> >> > > > instance. Since we do vm_attach in jthread_attach
>> >> we need to do
>> >> > > >> >> > > > vm_create_jthread inside jthread_atach as well.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > Of course it can be an alternative to do vm_attach
>> >> and
>> >> > > >> >> > > > vm_create_jthread outside of TM right before
>> >> jthread_attach.
>> >> > > >> >> Sure it
>> >> > > >> >> > > > will reduce one dependence between VM and TM. But
>> >> it seems like
>> >> > > >> >> > > > artificial action for me just because of
>> >> dependency....
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > Why do you think it is artificial? I would rather
>> >> prefer not to
>> >> > > >> throw
>> >> > > >> >> > > vm_attach event from the jthread_attach() call at
>> >> all than to add
>> >> > > >> >> > > extra dependency. The idea of jthread layer is a
>> >> Java face to
>> >> > > >> >> > > hythread, it is meant to know either a little or
>> >> nothing about the
>> >> > > >> >> > > rest of VM. It may be logical to throw vm_attach
>> >> call from the
>> >> > > >> newly
>> >> > > >> >> > > created thread, because there is no other way to let
>> >> know VM
>> >> > > >> the new
>> >> > > >> >> > > thread is created. VM attach is a different case -
>> >> VM already
>> >> > > >> knows
>> >> > > >> >> > > about new Java thread at the time of the
>> >> AttachCurrentThread call.
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Do you think it makes sense to replace a single
>> >> jthread
>> >> > > >> >> parameter with
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > a variety of stuff (like thread group, name)? It
>> >> seems the
>> >> > > >> only
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > purpose of at these args is to be passed back to
>> >> VM for
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > vm_jthread_create(). I would suggest to change
>> >> this and try
>> >> > > >> doing
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > either of:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > 1) Make signature of jthread_attach with 3 args,
>> >> JavaVM,
>> >> > > >> >> jthread and the daemon.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > Why do you want to pass daemon to TM but thread's
>> >> name and
>> >> > > >> >> group. Just
>> >> > > >> >> > > > because current TM doesn't need such information?
>> >> What if it is
>> >> > > >> >> > > > required to get thread name later? Say by
>> introducing
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > I imagine you need a daemon attribute since the TM
>> >> is still
>> >> > > >> managing
>> >> > > >> >> > > the thread daemonality. TM is not managing thread
>> >> name and group -
>> >> > > >> >> > > they are all kept on the Java level, hence passing
>> >> them may be
>> >> > > >> >> > > excessive.
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > jthread_get_name... What will you do in that case?
>> >> Let me
>> >> > > >> guess you
>> >> > > >> >> > > > will call j.l.Thread.getName. Right. Ok! In that
>> >> case I see no
>> >> > > >> >> > > > problems to call j.l.Thread.isDaemon. Do you
>> >> agree? So it
>> >> > > >> doesn't
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > As I suggested earlier, the best way to handle
>> >> daemonality would
>> >> > > >> >> > > probably be in pure Java - in j.l.Thread (or
>> >> > > >> j.l.VMThreadManager) or
>> >> > > >> >> > > whatever. You already lifted it up to the jthread
>> >> level, but
>> >> > > >> what if
>> >> > > >> >> > > we can go a little bit higher...
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > seems to be a good design to pass only part of the
>> >> > > >> information to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > jthread_atach. Lets look at the signature of
>> >> > > >> >> AttachCurrentThread. It
>> >> > > >> >> > > > takes exactly these three parameters (daemon,
>> >> name, group)
>> >> > > >> >> passed as a
>> >> > > >> >> > > > structure. I was thinking about having exactly the
>> >> same
>> >> > > >> >> structure as
>> >> > > >> >> > > > third parameter of jthread_attach but it occured
>> >> to be more
>> >> > > >> >> convinient
>> >> > > >> >> > > > to pass them seperatly. Although I don't see
>> >> strong reasons
>> >> > > >> against
>> >> > > >> >> > > > having a structure a third parameter.
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > I see. Acually, I would love to keep the
>> >> jthread_attach func-ty at
>> >> > > >> >> the
>> >> > > >> >> > > minimum level which will be needed to handle the
>> >> only data that TM
>> >> > > >> >> > > should be aware of. We need a formal boundary
>> >> between jthread
>> >> > > >> layer
>> >> > > >> >> > > and vmcore (otherwise jthread won't have a much of
>> >> sense, one may
>> >> > > >> >> > > consider it just as a convenience set of functions
>> >> in vmcore which
>> >> > > >> >> are
>> >> > > >> >> > > doing something with threading).
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > 2) Move the implementation of vm_create_jtrhead
>> >> () to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > thread_java_basic.c - could it be written in
>> >> pure JNI without
>> >> > > >> >> using
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > internal VM API like class_alloc_new_object()?
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > Yes, this can be done but it doesn't fix the
>> >> problem. You still
>> >> > > >> >> need
>> >> > > >> >> > > > to know about internal constructor of j.l.Thread
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > That's bad. Given what you said, now it seems that
>> >> the most
>> >> > > >> >> preferable
>> >> > > >> >> > > sequence for AttachCurrentThread impl still would be
>> >> like:
>> >> > > >> >> > > JNIEnv = vm_attach();
>> >> > > >> >> > > jthread = create_jthread(JNIenv)
>> >> > > >> >> > > jthread_attach(JNIEnv, jthread) // stores JNIEnv and
>> >> Hythread into
>> >> > > >> >> > > TLS, doesn't call vm_attach any longer.
>> >> > > >> >> > > - this is almost what we had from the beginning...
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> >> > > Andrey.
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> > > > Evgueni
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Andrey.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Thank you
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Evgueni
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > > >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Artem,
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback.... find my
>> >> inlined.....
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Evgueni,
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I got most of your changes, but still
>> >> disagree
>> >> > > >> with all
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread/jthread interface changes.
>> >> Could leave
>> >> > > >> >> interface unchanged.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > See following possible solutions, that
>> >> could solve
>> >> > > >> >> the same problems
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > without interface changes.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 1) daemon attribute is a java
>> >> specific. (Andrey
>> >> > > >> >> mentioned this already).
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Could you please move it back. to
>> >> the jthread
>> >> > > >> >> layer. It is better
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to rename
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> jthread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads().
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, I see no problems to move "daemon"
>> >> to java layer.
>> >> > > >> >> In that case:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 1) I will move
>> >> > > >> >> hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() from
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > thread_init.c to one which implements
>> >> java layer.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 2) I will move daemon field from
>> >> HyThread structure.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Agree?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Sounds good to me.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > OK, will do that.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 2) JavaVM could be retrieved from
>> >> JNIEnv by
>> >> > > >> >> jni_get_java_vm(). So
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > let the jthread_create() and others to
>> >> use JNIEnv
>> >> > > >> >> (that is passed from
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > java native method).
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The vm_attach could get old JNI env
>> >> and create new
>> >> > > >> >> one for the new thread.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The first JNIEnv is created in
>> >> CreateVM call and
>> >> > > >> >> could be passed to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the first thread at startup.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > No, no, no. I completely disagree with
>> >> that!!! Why do
>> >> > > >> >> you like JNIEnv
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > but JavaVM. Why do you think that
>> >> passing JavaVM
>> >> > > >> >> instead of JNIEnv
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > makes TM less modular? I don't see any
>> >> difference
>> >> > > >> >> here.... It seems
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for me like a big big hack to grab
>> >> JNIEnv from another
>> >> > > >> >> thread and pass
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it to jthread_attach to perform
>> >> operations in the
>> >> > > >> >> current thread.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > TM needs to know JNIEnv, mainly for
>> >> managing the
>> >> > > >> >> references to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > objects, throwing exceptions and calling
>> >> run() method of
>> >> > > >> >> a new thread.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > JNI spec proposes that JNIEnv is valid
>> >> within the given
>> >> > > >> >> thread, this
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is why TM holds the JNIEnv pointer at the
>> >> moment. This
>> >> > > >> >> is why TM likes
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > the JNIEnv.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Having the JNIEnv, one is able to get
>> >> JavaVM but not
>> >> > > >> >> vise versa. This
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is why TM doesn't like the JavaVM :)
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > I see your point. Only one note this is true
>> >> for already
>> >> > > >> >> attached threads...
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I agree with you that there is a design
>> >> flaw that the
>> >> > > >> >> JNIEnv is copied
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > from the parent thread to a child thread
>> >> during thread
>> >> > > >> >> creation. I
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > think it could be resolved via vm_attach()
>> >> hook - with
>> >> > > >> >> this event, VM
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > might tell the TM what the JNIEnv pointer
>> >> for new thread
>> >> > > >> >> should be. I
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > think you did that by extending the
>> >> vm_attach() call
>> >> > > >> >> with the JNIEnv**
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > argument.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > What is not completely clear is, why do
>> >> you have to pass
>> >> > > >> >> the JavaVM
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > forth and back, once from VM to TM, and
>> >> then back from
>> >> > > >> >> TM to VM again?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > If you need to know in jthread_attach,
>> >> which particular
>> >> > > >> >> VM vm_attach()
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > event is coming from, you could have
>> >> vm_attach like
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > vm_attach(JNIEnv* currentThreadEnv,
>> JNIEnv**
>> >> > > >> >> newThreadEnv).
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > I'm a little bit confused.....Current thread
>> >> hasn't been
>> >> > > >> >> attached yet.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > So there is no JNIEnv for it yet. How it can
>> >> be passed as
>> >> > > >> >> the first
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > parameter to vm_attach()?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Then you will be always able to get the
>> >> JavaVM from the
>> >> > > >> >> JNIEnv.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > The only difference is that you are
>> >> currently doing
>> >> > > >> >> JNIEnv->JavaVM
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > conversion in the VMThreadManager, but why
>> >> can't you
>> >> > > >> >> just do this in
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > vm_attach() without changing the interface
>> >> of the TM?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > So far JavaVM really looks like an extra
>> >> knowledge that
>> >> > > >> >> TM doesn't
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > have to be aware of.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Moreover there is no JNIEnv when main
>> >> thread attaches
>> >> > > >> >> to VM. So we
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > should either keep it as is or change
>> >> original design
>> >> > > >> >> of TM and attach
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > thread to VM before attaching it to TM.
>> >> In that case
>> >> > > >> >> we will have
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valid JNIEnv which can be passed to
>> >> jthread_atatch. We
>> >> > > >> >> need to think
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > over it twice before changing
>> something....
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Right. For jthread_attach, JNIenv needs to
>> >> be changed
>> >> > > >> >> from being input
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > parameter to being the output parameter.
>> >> The way how
>> >> > > >> >> JNIenv is
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > obtained by TM should be vm_attach()
>> event.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > OK, JNIEnv is output parameter. And it
>> >> obtained by
>> >> > > >> >> vm_attach(). This
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > is exactly like I do in the patch. What I
>> >> don't understand
>> >> > > >> >> is how
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_attach knows to which VM the thread
>> >> should be
>> >> > > >> >> attached? Do you
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > suggest calling vm_attach first to create
>> >> JNIEnv it pass
>> >> > > >> >> it to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_attach?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 4) Original classlib hythread do
>> not use
>> >> > > >> >> hythread_library_t in arguments,
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > It uses following code:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread_library_t lib = GLOBAL_DATA
>> >> > > >> >> (default_library);
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread_library_t library = thread-
>> >> >library;
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So could you please use the same
>> >> mechanism and
>> >> > > >> >> remove hythread_*_ex >functions.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Let's see if classlib's hythread needs
>> >> changing first.
>> >> > > >> >> It seems for me
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > such code prevents us from having
>> multi VM.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 5. You introduce more then one jni
>> >> env, but still
>> >> > > >> >> use global variable for it.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So all changes like following:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)
>> >> jni_native_intf;
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv = jni_native_intf;
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > should be like:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)
>> >> jni_native_intf;
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv = get_jni_env
>> >> (jthread_self());
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, I see. I agree that global
>> >> jni_native_intf should
>> >> > > >> >> not be used.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > There was simple reason why I altered
>> >> such lines.
>> >> > > >> >> Because I changed
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the type of jni_native_intf and no
>> >> casting operator
>> >> > > >> >> is needed now. To
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > be honest I think get_jni_env
>> >> (jthread_self()) can be
>> >> > > >> >> good as temporary
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > solution only. Lets wait for design of
>> >> multi VM and
>> >> > > >> >> fix it according
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > to it.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > While we are in JNI code, we always have
>> >> the JNIenv (at
>> >> > > >> >> least
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > initially it comes from Java code). If we
>> >> consider VM
>> >> > > >> >> code as if it
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > was a JNI application, then it seems like
>> >> we should be
>> >> > > >> >> just passing
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > JNIEnv as a parameter to all functions in
>> >> VM. Or, we can
>> >> > > >> >> be taking it
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > from TLS (via jthread_self()), depending
>> >> on which way is
>> >> > > >> >> faster...
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > Agree.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 6). And small remarks:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init1(JavaVM_Internal *
>> java_vm,
>> >> > > >> >> JavaVMInitArgs * vm_arguments);
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init2(JNIEnv_Internal *
>> >> jni_env);
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Could you make names more meaningful,
>> >> then 1,2,3...?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, will do that.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > class VM_thread {
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ...
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv_Internal * jni_env;
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The jthread already has the jni_env
>> >> pointer, you do
>> >> > > >> >> not need to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > duplicate it here.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > forexample by using
>> >> > > >> >> jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self());
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes I know. I don't see any problems
>> >> here. Some times
>> >> > > >> >> it is much more
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > convenient to get JNIEnv from VM_thread
>> >> structure (and
>> >> > > >> >> faster) instead
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of doing jthread_get_JNI_env
>> (jthread_self
>> >> ()). So I
>> >> > > >> >> need strong
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > arguments for removing it. Again it
>> >> seems that should
>> >> > > >> >> be addressed in
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > design of multi VM. So lets forget about
>> >> it for a
>> >> > > >> >> while...
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I think that the data duplication would
>> >> always serve as
>> >> > > >> >> a potential
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > source of errors - while updating one copy
>> >> of object,
>> >> > > >> >> you may forget
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to update the other, often resulting into
>> >> a strange
>> >> > > >> >> behavior of the
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > whole application. Let's see what are the
>> >> specific
>> >> > > >> >> performance
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > concerns that have to be addressed. To get
>> >> VM_thread
>> >> > > >> >> structure, you
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > would eventually go to the TLS, just like
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self()
>> would do.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > If there is already VM_thread structure for
>> >> some reasons
>> >> > > >> >> then there
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > will be no extra access to TLS. It is
>> >> definitely much
>> >> > > >> more in
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self() than just
>> >> one TLS
>> >> > > >> >> access and one
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > dereferncing. I don't think it is a really
>> >> big problem
>> >> > > >> >> now. Do you
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > agree to look at this later. I guess
>> multi VM
>> >> > > >> >> implementation will
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > alter it in any case.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > Evgueni
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Artem
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > I suppose two days silence means
>> >> that there is no
>> >> > > >> >> objects (maybe
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > interest) against proposed patch. I
>> >> would suggest
>> >> > > >> >> to commit it ASAP.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It really works! There are some
>> >> cases when current
>> >> > > >> >> VM crashes but the
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > patch fixes it. I can work on
>> >> bringing cunit tests
>> >> > > >> >> to live as soon as
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the patch is committed.... This is
>> >> just my
>> >> > > >> >> understanding.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr.
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > So where are we here?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:41 AM,
>> >> Evgueni Brevnov
>> >> > > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Weldon Washburn
>> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On 9/27/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> >> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > (3)
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > One more lock is added -
>> >> > > >> >> hythread_lib_lock. How is that differ
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> from
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the hythread_global_lock
>> >> that we already
>> >> > > >> >> have? Each extra lock
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to the
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > system may add more
>> >> possibilities for
>> >> > > >> >> deadlocks, as well as can
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > negatively impact the
>> >> scalability (unless
>> >> > > >> >> some of the existing
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locks
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > are split).
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_lib_lock acquires
>> >> exactly the same
>> >> > > >> >> lock as
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_global_lock.
>> >> Probably I miss
>> >> > > >> >> something but we need to be
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > compatible with IBM threading
>> >> library now.
>> >> > > >> >> This library has such
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > function. That's why I added
>> >> it. Sounds
>> >> > > >> right?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Well, this sort of, kind of
>> >> sounds right but
>> >> > > >> >> not quite. Its a
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> little more
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> subtle than being compatible
>> >> with IBM
>> >> > > >> >> threading library. The
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> first goal is
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to identify the parts of IBM
>> >> threading
>> >> > > >> >> library that are JVM
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> independent. It
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> makes sense for DRLVM to be
>> >> compatible with
>> >> > > >> >> the independent
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> parts. This
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> should be a nobrainer.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> The parts of IBM threading
>> >> library that
>> >> > > >> >> assume a specific JVM
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> will be a problem. We will
>> >> need to find a
>> >> > > >> >> solution that is
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> endorsed by all
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the stakeholders (including J9
>> >> folks). The
>> >> > > >> >> hythread_global_lock
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> falls into
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> this category. For starts, I
>> >> would like to
>> >> > > >> >> see a concise
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> description from
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the portlib owners on what
>> >> > > >> >> hythread_global_lock protects, which
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locks have
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to be held before grabbing this
>> >> lock, are
>> >> > > >> >> there any restrictions
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> on what
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> system calls can be made while
>> >> holding this
>> >> > > >> >> lock (like sleep or
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wait), etc.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weldon, I completely agree with
>> >> what your are
>> >> > > >> >> saying. It's common
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem of current hythread that
>> >> should be
>> >> > > >> >> resolved some how. I just
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > go inline with current
>> >> implementation and
>> >> > > >> >> added two missing functions.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Missing these can lead to the
>> >> same problems as
>> >> > > >> >> with hythread_exit
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussed in another thread
>> >> "[drlvm]
>> >> > > >> >> [launcher] Executable hangs".
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> To get a better idea what's
>> in the
>> >> > > >> >> patch.diff, I printed it out.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Its 120+
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> pages. Quite a big patch!
>> >> Most of it looks
>> >> > > >> >> like straight forward
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> JNI
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> interface glue. There are some
>> >> tricky
>> >> > > >> >> parts. I would like to
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> know the
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> design review process for these
>> >> parts. Using
>> >> > > >> >> grep, I found 20
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locations
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> where ...suspend_enable... and
>> >> > > >> >> ...suspend_disable... have been
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> added. And
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 25 locations where enable/
>> >> disable have been
>> >> > > >> >> removed. Failure in
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> this logic
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> can lead to incorrect reference
>> >> pointer
>> >> > > >> >> enumeration. These are
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> probably the
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hardest bugs to find. Please
>> >> tell us who has
>> >> > > >> >> looked at this code
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> in depth.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Only me and you :-) Honetsly I
>> >> think it
>> >> > > >> >> happpens now....
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Are there any known design
>> >> flaws in it?
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can think of two possible
>> >> problems we may
>> >> > > >> >> want to discuss.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Should native threads have
>> >> "daemon" status
>> >> > > >> >> or its completely java
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > notion? This is TM related
>> thing.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Should we attach thread to VM
>> >> before
>> >> > > >> >> attaching it to TM by calling
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > jthread_atatch OR jthread_attach
>> >> should
>> >> > > >> >> callback VM to attach a thread
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to it? I didn't change original
>> >> design of TM
>> >> > > >> >> here ...... it implements
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > second choice.
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I also notice APIs called
>> >> > > >> tmn_suspend_enable(),
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hythread_suspend_enable()
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> -- are these simply different
>> >> names for the
>> >> > > >> >> same binary
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> executible. Or
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> different binaries that do the
>> >> same thing??
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not just different
>> >> names.
>> >> > > >> >> tm_suspend_enable asserts that
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread is in disabled state
>> >> before calling
>> >> > > >> >> hythread_suspend_enable (in
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > debug mode only).
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Weldon Washburn
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Intel Middleware Products
>> >> Division
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > Terms of use :
>> >> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/
>> harmony/
>> >> mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > > --
>> >> > > >> >> > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> >> > > >> >> > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> >> mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > >> >> >
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> >> mailing.html
>> >> > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> >> mailing.html
>> >> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> mailing.html
>> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> mailing.html
>> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
