Re: RFR(XS) 8069030: support new PTRACE_GETREGSET

Thanks David and Staffan for the reviews. dl On 2/2/2015 5:07 PM, David Holmes wrote: Looks good. Thanks, David On 3/02/2015 8:46 AM, Dean Long wrote: Ping. I'm still waiting for a second review on this. thanks, dl On 1/28/2015 5:15 PM, Dean Long wrote: Adding serviceability-dev@openjdk

Re: RFR(XS) 8069030: support new PTRACE_GETREGSET

Looks good. Thanks, David On 3/02/2015 8:46 AM, Dean Long wrote: Ping. I'm still waiting for a second review on this. thanks, dl On 1/28/2015 5:15 PM, Dean Long wrote: Adding serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net. Can I get another review for this please? thanks, dl On 1/26/2015 11:02 PM

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8072371: Add two failing svc tests to the problem list

loos fine joe On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:18 PM, joe darcy wrote: > Hello, > > We've observed two serviceability tests failing on mac platforms; I'd like to > put those tests on the problem list while the underlying causes are under > investigation: > >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8072371.

JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8072371: Add two failing svc tests to the problem list

Hello, We've observed two serviceability tests failing on mac platforms; I'd like to put those tests on the problem list while the underlying causes are under investigation: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8072371.0/ Patch below. Thanks, -Joe --- old/test/ProblemList.txt2015-02-

Re: RFR(XS) 8069030: support new PTRACE_GETREGSET

Ping. I'm still waiting for a second review on this. thanks, dl On 1/28/2015 5:15 PM, Dean Long wrote: Adding serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net. Can I get another review for this please? thanks, dl On 1/26/2015 11:02 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote: Looks good! Thanks, /Staffan On 27 jan

Re: RFR 8066708: JMXStartStopTest fails to connect to port 38112

On 2/2/15 2:33 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: I've applied your comments and the code is a tad simpler now. I also ironed out a few more corner cases. I ran the test 500x in a tight loop and no failure, yay! Update: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8066708/webrev.04 Hi Jaroslav, Looks q

Re: Review request: Backport of JDK-8046282 to 8u

Hello, Could I have reviews for these backported changes, please. Thanks, Poonam On 1/29/2015 11:42 AM, Poonam Bajaj Parhar wrote: Hello, Review request for the backport of 8046282 to 8u: Bug: JDK-8046282 SA update Webrev: http://cr.openjd

RFR 8069286: Unexpected count of notification in LowMemoryTest

Please, review the following test change Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8069286 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8069286/webrev.00 In JDK-8034263 the conditions on the number of notifications were relaxed for the cases when running with CMS GC. Due to the nature o

Re: RFR: JDK-8068589: GCCause should distinguish jcmd GC.run from System.gc()

Hi, I need more reviewer. Could you review it? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8068589/webrev.02/ Thanks, Yasumasa 2015/01/28 17:24 "Staffan Larsen" : > Looks good! > > Thanks, > /Staffan > > > On 28 jan 2015, at 05:48, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: > > > > Hi Staffan, Kirk, > > > > I agre

Re: RFR(L): 8071908, 8071909: Port internal Diagnostic Command tests and test framework to jtreg (plus some testlibrary changes)

Thanks everyone for the reviews. This has now been pushed. Mikael On 2015-01-30 21:19, Mikael Auno wrote: > Thanks Jaroslav! > > I'll leave this open for further comments if someone else has them until > Monday afternoon (CET). If there are no more comments by then I'll get > it pushed at that t

RFR 8064331: JavaSecurityAccess.doIntersectionPrivilege() drops the information about the domain combiner of the stack ACC

Please, review the following change to j.s.ProtectionDomain Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064331 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8064331/webrev.01 This issue was reported against the JMX functionality. When a user tries to do the following ``` AccessControlCon

Re: RFR 8066708: JMXStartStopTest fails to connect to port 38112

Hi Stuart, On 15.1.2015 02:14, Stuart Marks wrote: On 1/9/15 4:17 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote: I've changed the PortAllocator to allocate an array of unique random ports instead of letting ServerSocket to take care of it. I ran the test 200x in a tight loop without a failure. I hope this will