Greetings,
This is a code review request for the JDK8u-hs-dev backport of the
following ObjectMonitor-JVM/TI hang fix:
8028073 race condition in ObjectMonitor implementation causing
deadlocks
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8028073
Here is the JDK8u-hs-dev webrev URL:
http:/
On 2014-02-14 18:52, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Please, review the changes.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-7189721/webrev.01/
>
> Summary:
>
> If for some reason elf section with section names is not loaded to cache
> it attempts to read data using NULL section p
This is an attempt to solve a crash while redefining a class that has
unresolved class references in its constant pool. I would appreciate some extra
scrutiny here since I am unfamiliar with this code path.
I have also added a test that causes a JVM crash without the fix.
The updates to the te
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 21.2.2014 10:26, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
On 20.2.2014 19:20, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav,
The failed tests were:
1, 7, 8, 9
but the tests using this port (port2: 50235) were
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
and tests 2,4,6 were passed.
Looks okay to me.
David
On 21/02/2014 8:13 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review this very simple test fix.
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033787
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8033787/webrev.00
The fix just adds -XX:+UsePerfData parameter to the @run s
Please, review this very simple test fix.
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8033787
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8033787/webrev.00
The fix just adds -XX:+UsePerfData parameter to the @run section of the
mentioned test.
-JB-
On 21.2.2014 10:26, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
On 20.2.2014 19:20, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav,
The failed tests were:
1, 7, 8, 9
but the tests using this port (port2: 50235) were
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
and tests 2,4,6 were passed.
so I think that the proble
Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Hi Shanliang,
On 20.2.2014 19:20, shanliang wrote:
Jaroslav,
The failed tests were:
1, 7, 8, 9
but the tests using this port (port2: 50235) were
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
and tests 2,4,6 were passed.
so I think that the problem might be that the port was not fully