On 2015-02-11 04:13, Chris Plummer wrote:
In general I think this looks very good. Simple and well-commented
code to follow. I am missing a test, though. Please look at the
hotspot/test/serviceability/dcmd set of tests.
Added.
Your test is based on DcmdUtil.java which was removed last week
Thanks for the review. Would you help me push this (exported changeset
attached)?
Thanks,
Mikael
On 2015-02-04 17:56, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Looks good!
-JB-
On 4.2.2015 16:13, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi, could I have a review for this small change to ignore three tests.
Issue: https
Hi, could I have a review for this small change to ignore three tests.
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8072472
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8072472/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Mikael
Hi, could I please have some reviews for these very small fixes.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8072401_8072403_8072405/webrev.00/
Issues:
Some of the newly added DCMD tests fail due to lack of -XX:+UsePerfData
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8072401
HeapDumpTest and
Thanks for the review. Could you help push this for me? The exported
changsets are attached.
Thanks,
Mikael
On 2015-02-03 16:44, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Looks good.
-JB-
On 3.2.2015 16:27, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi, could I please have some reviews for these very small fixes.
Webrev
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 time
:32, Mikael Auno wrote:
Jaroslav,
First of all, thanks for the quick response and sorry for my slow one
(your message didn't sort into the mail folder I expected, so didn't see
it until now).
Secondly, all good comments; all fixed.
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno
in CodeCacheTest.java.
New webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8071908_8071909/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Mikael
On 2015-01-30 10:44, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi, could I please some reviews for this test port?
Issues: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8071908
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse
wakeups may cause the test fail intermittently; should
make sure the wait was at least 'someUptime' seconds long
-JB-
On 30.1.2015 10:44, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi, could I please some reviews for this test port?
Issues: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8071908
https
Hi, could I please some reviews for this test port?
Issues: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8071908
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8071909
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8071908_8071909/webrev.00/
Read on for the rationale on a few questions that might
/%7Eykantser/8068584/webrev.01/
Mattias
On 01/08/2015 11:21 AM, Mikael Auno wrote:
On 2015-01-08 11:04, Mattias Tobiasson wrote:
Hi,
Could I please have a review of this bug quarantine.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068584
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser
Hi,
Could I please have a review of addition to ProblemList.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068718
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8068718/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Mikael
Thanks for the review!
Mikael
On 2015-01-09 13:59, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Looks good!
-JB-
On 9.1.2015 13:54, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi,
Could I please have a review of addition to ProblemList.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068718
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net
On 2015-01-08 00:29, Chris Plummer wrote:
At the moment not much testing has been done other than running the DCMD
and looking at the output. I'll do more once it's clear the code has
settled. I would like to know if there are any existing tests for
GC.class_stats and GC.class_histogram (there
On 2014-11-14 09:53, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/11/2014 08:40, Staffan Larsen wrote:
:
So the goal here has been to increase the test coverage of hotspot
jprt push jobs, but with a limited impact on execution time. This is
all to make sure hotspot changes do no break serviceability features.
On 2014-11-14 10:55, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/11/2014 09:32, Mikael Auno wrote:
:
Here's an updated webrev with your proposed changes.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8064799/webrev.01/
This looks to okay, thanks for taking the concern on board.
-Alan
Perfect. Thanks for the reviews
Hi,
Could I please get a review of this addition of SVC tests to JPRT submit
jobs. So far, I'm only adding JDI tests as those are the only ones I
have completed code coverage analysis on to determine the best subset to
add. The other areas will be added too, but I'm adding these now to get
the
On 2014-11-13 14:56, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get a review of this addition of SVC tests to JPRT submit
jobs. So far, I'm only adding JDI tests as those are the only ones I
have completed code coverage analysis on to determine the best subset to
add. The other areas
On 2014-10-06 13:51, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
On 2014-10-06 15:09, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Changes looks good. How much testing have you done with the newly
enabled tests? I’m worried that they could be unstable since they
have never been run.
Only smoke test: Linux jtreg for promoted jdk9 and
wrote:
Mikael,
I could help you start a distributed adhoc run if you'd like.
Much appreciated!
-Dmitry
On 2014-10-06 16:00, Mikael Auno wrote:
On 2014-10-06 13:51, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
On 2014-10-06 15:09, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Changes looks good. How much testing have you done
On 2014-09-25 12:24, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 09/25/2014 12:13 PM, Staffan Larsen wrote:
I wonder if the p.waitFor() is needed? What if the process launching
expired with a timeout and now we are still waiting for the process to
end - wouldn’t that kind of defeat the timeout? In any case,
Thanks for the review Jaroslav. Could you also help me push this
(exported changesets attached)?
Thanks,
Mikael
On 2014-09-22 10:30, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Reviewed
-JB-
On 09/18/2014 02:32 PM, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi,
Could I please have a review for these small additions
Hi,
Could I please have a review for these small additions to
ProblemList.txt in jdk9? They are separate changes (jcheck didn't agree
with the guidelines[1] about multiple fixes in a single changeset) with
separate bug numbers, but it seems easier to have one review for them all.
bug:
Hi,
Could I please have a review for this small addition to ProblemList.txt?
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8057937
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8057937/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Mikael
Thanks for the reviews! Staffan, could you help me push this (exported
changeset attached)?
Thanks
Mikael
On 2014-09-10 11:05, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Looks good!
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 10 sep 2014, at 10:44, Mikael Auno mikael.a...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
Could I please have a review
Thanks for the reviews.
Staffan, could you help me push this? The exported changeset is attached.
Thanks,
Mikael
On 2014-06-02 23:48, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Mikael,
It looks good.
Thank you for doing this!
Thanks,
Serguei
On 6/2/14 9:14 AM, Mikael Auno wrote:
Hi,
Could
Thanks for the review. Could you also help me push this to hs-rt? The
exported changeset is attached.
Mikael
On 2014-06-02 19:28, Staffan Larsen wrote:
Looks good!
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 2 jun 2014, at 17:29, Mikael Auno mikael.a...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
Could I please have a review
Hi,
Could I please have a review of this very small fix.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8044540/webrev.00/
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044540
Verified locally.
Thanks,
Mikael
Note that RepStep was just added to ProblemList due to this issue and
will have to be removed from there when the fix is integrated.
Mikael
On 2014-05-08 08:06, Staffan Larsen wrote:
All,
This is a fix for an assert in JVMTI that verifies that JVMTI’s internal
notion of the number of
,
/Staffan
On 5 maj 2014, at 16:42, Mikael Auno mikael.a...@oracle.com wrote:
Thanks for spotting it. New webrev at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8040748/webrev.03/.
Mikael
On 2014-05-05 16:18, Staffan Larsen wrote:
8039432 is Resolved and should not be listed.
/Staffan
On 5 maj 2014
). So 8035195 should not be listed.
For test/sun/tools/jinfo/Basic.sh, there are no open bugs against it (except
JDK-6542634 which is a timeout from 2007 and I’m not sure it is valid) so I
don’t think it should be quarantined.
/Staffan
On 24 apr 2014, at 20:01, Mikael Auno mikael.a
Thanks for spotting it. New webrev at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8040748/webrev.03/.
Mikael
On 2014-05-05 16:18, Staffan Larsen wrote:
8039432 is Resolved and should not be listed.
/Staffan
On 5 maj 2014, at 15:26, Mikael Auno mikael.a...@oracle.com wrote:
I've updated
quarantined tests, which can be
used to run the tests as a separate batch. Recommend to add this to all tests:
@key quarantine
Note that you may have to add the key word as a known key word to the
TEST.ROOT file as well.
Best regards,
Stefan
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Auno
Please, review the following fix adding the @ignore tag to a couple of
serviceability tests
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040748
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8040748/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Mikael
How about defining the class that you want to attach to as a static
inner class to the actual test? That would give you only one file, but
with two classes, each with its own main method and clear correlation
between them.
Mikael
On 2013-11-20 15:41, Mattias Tobiasson wrote:
Hi,
Each test
are there changes to the existing tests? Most look like whitespace
changes, but JdpTest.sh changes the “testsuites” that are being run.
/Staffan
On 08 Nov 2013, at 18:45, Mikael Auno mikael.a...@oracle.com
mailto:mikael.a...@oracle.com wrote:
There was some unintended whitespace changes in webrev.05
There was some unintended whitespace changes in webrev.05 that Alex had
missed. I removed them and uploaded webrev.06 for him.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~miauno/8014506/webrev.06/
Mikael
On 2013-11-08 17:02, Alex Schenkman wrote:
Hi list,
Latest version is up for review here [1].
It fixes
On 2013-10-29 15:41, Staffan Larsen wrote:
This test fails if there are background threads that run while the
test is running. I've modified the test to use the trace commands
in jdb with the extra thread parameter. I have assumed that the main
thread has thread id 1. trace with thread id
Thanks for the reviews.
Mikael
On 2013-10-18 13:09, Peter Allwin wrote:
+1
Thanks,
/peter
On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Staffan Larsen staffan.lar...@oracle.com wrote:
Looks good!
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 16 okt 2013, at 14:04, Mikael Auno mikael.a...@oracle.com wrote:
This bug got a bit
optimize it a bit by not doing the Arrays.asList() on every
methodExit event.
/Staffan
On 17 apr 2013, at 15:03, Mikael Auno mikael.a...@oracle.com
wrote:
Hi, I'd like some reviews on
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nloodin/8009681/webrev.01/ for
JDK-8009681 (http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id
On 2013-05-24 16:13, Nils Loodin wrote:
Simple fix not to add a confusing dialog.
Bug: https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-6470730
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nloodin/6470730/webrev.00/
Fix looks simple and good to me. However, I don't have my OpenJDK
username yet, so this might
Hi, I'd like some reviews on
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nloodin/8009681/webrev.01/ for JDK-8009681
(http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8009681).
The issue here is that when MethodExitReturnValuesTest hooks into
MethodExit events through JDI it uses an exclude list to filter out
classes
42 matches
Mail list logo
