On 9/15/16 8:18 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 08:15 -0600, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Dmitry,
This fix needs to be run through the entire JPDA test stack
before it is pushed. Don't know if we still have test definitions
to support that style of run anymore so it might be easi
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 08:15 -0600, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> This fix needs to be run through the entire JPDA test stack
> before it is pushed. Don't know if we still have test definitions
> to support that style of run anymore so it might be easier to
> run it through the equivalen
Dmitry,
This fix needs to be run through the entire JPDA test stack
before it is pushed. Don't know if we still have test definitions
to support that style of run anymore so it might be easier to
run it through the equivalent of a JDK9-hs nightly.
Dan
On 9/14/16 11:50 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote
Hi Serguei,
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 11:44 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Severin,
>
> The fix looks good.
> Thank you for persistence in fixing the issue!
Thanks for the review!
> The only suggestion is to refactor the lines 800-815 into a method call.
> Something like deletePoenti
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 20:50 +0300, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Severin,
>
> The fix looks good for me.
>
> I'll sponsor the push, but please wait for Serguei.
Thanks, Dmitry.
Cheers,
Severin
> -Dmitry
>
>
> On 2016-09-09 19:27, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could I please get a
Hi Severin,
The fix looks good.
Thank you for persistence in fixing the issue!
The only suggestion is to refactor the lines 800-815 into a method call.
Something like deletePoentiallySavedGlobalRefs, similar to
deleteGlobalArgumetRefs.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 9/14/16 09:34, Severin Gehwolf wrot
Severin,
The fix looks good for me.
I'll sponsor the push, but please wait for Serguei.
-Dmitry
On 2016-09-09 19:27, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please get a review of the this 4th version of this fix:
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153711
> webrev: http://cr
Anyone?
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 18:27 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please get a review of the this 4th version of this fix:
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153711
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8153711/webrev.03/
>
> It fixes a mem
Hi,
Could I please get a review of the this 4th version of this fix:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153711
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8153711/webrev.03/
It fixes a memory leak problem in the debugger as shown by the new
regression test.
A bit of his
Serguei,
On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 17:25 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> On 5/8/16 03:58, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> > Severin,
> >
> > The JPRT job failed: 2016-05-08-100525.sspitsyn.8153711 with a
> > NullPointerException.
> > The log link is (you can also find the most relevan
On 5/8/16 03:58, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Severin,
The JPRT job failed: 2016-05-08-100525.sspitsyn.8153711 with a
NullPointerException.
The log link is (you can also find the most relevant fragment of the
log in the bug report):
http://scaaa637.us.oracle.com//archive/2016/05/2016-05-
Severin,
The JPRT job failed: 2016-05-08-100525.sspitsyn.8153711 with a
NullPointerException.
The log link is (you can also find the most relevant fragment of the log
in the bug report):
http://scaaa637.us.oracle.com//archive/2016/05/2016-05-08-100525.sspitsyn.8153711//logs/solaris_x64_5.11-fa
Hi Severin,
I filed two new bugs to cover the discovered issues:
8156498: more places in the invoke.c that need protection with the
invokerLock
8156500: deadlock provoked by new stress test com/sun/jdi/OomDebugTest.java
Will try to push your two fixes today or tomorrow.
I know, you've just g
Hi Severin,
Please, find my comments below.
On 5/2/16 01:44, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 12:33 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4/29/16 01:56, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 01:34 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Severin,
Th
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 12:33 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> On 4/29/16 01:56, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi Serguei,
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 01:34 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> > > Hi Severin,
> > >
> > > The fix looks good in general.
> > > I'm testing both fixes to
On 4/29/16 01:56, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi Serguei,
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 01:34 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Severin,
The fix looks good in general.
I'm testing both fixes together at the moment.
That is JDK-8154529 and JDK-8153711? Yes, that's what I've done too.
A couple o
Hi Serguei,
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 01:34 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Severin,
>
> The fix looks good in general.
> I'm testing both fixes together at the moment.
That is JDK-8154529 and JDK-8153711? Yes, that's what I've done too.
> A couple of questions...
>
> It seems, there
Hi Severin,
The fix looks good in general.
I'm testing both fixes together at the moment.
A couple of questions...
It seems, there are more places where an invokerLock critical section is
missed.
The following functions:
- invoker_enableInvokeRequests
- invokeConstructor
- invokeStatic
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 19:32 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> > Hi Severin,
> >
> > I postpone a push for this fix.
> >
> > There are two nsk.jdi test failures (they look like deadlocks):
> > nsk/jdi/ObjectReference/invokeMethod/invokemethod012 FAIL(TIMEOUT)
> > nsk/jdi/Scenarios/inv
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 19:32 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> On 4/19/16 19:06, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> >
> > On 4/19/16 02:22, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4/19/16 02:16, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 0
On 4/19/16 19:06, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4/19/16 02:22, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4/19/16 02:16, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 01:33 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Severin,
Please, find my comments below.
On 4/15/16 13:52, serguei.spi
On 4/19/16 02:22, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4/19/16 02:16, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 01:33 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Severin,
Please, find my comments below.
On 4/15/16 13:52, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4/15/16 11:59, Dmitry Same
On 4/19/16 02:16, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 01:33 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Severin,
Please, find my comments below.
On 4/15/16 13:52, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4/15/16 11:59, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Severin,
Looks good for me.
But I'm a
Hi,
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 01:33 -0700, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Severin,
>
> Please, find my comments below.
>
> On 4/15/16 13:52, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
> > On 4/15/16 11:59, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> > > Severin,
> > >
> > > Looks good for me.
> > >
> > > But I'm
Hi Severin,
Please, find my comments below.
On 4/15/16 13:52, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote:
On 4/15/16 11:59, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Severin,
Looks good for me.
But I'm a little afraid of the fact that now we are holding
eventHandler_lock while doing invoke*.
It seems, I have this co
Hi Dmitry,
On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 21:59 +0300, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Severin,
>
> Looks good for me.
Thanks for the review!
> But I'm a little afraid of the fact that now we are holding
> eventHandler_lock while doing invoke*.
OK. FWIW, we need to hold this lock for proper lock ordering.
Ot
On 4/15/16 11:59, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Severin,
Looks good for me.
But I'm a little afraid of the fact that now we are holding
eventHandler_lock while doing invoke*.
It seems, I have this concern too.
Please, let me take a look closer at this part if it is done in a right way.
So pleas
Severin,
Looks good for me.
But I'm a little afraid of the fact that now we are holding
eventHandler_lock while doing invoke*.
So please hold on with backports until the fix bakes in jdk9 for some time.
-Dmitry
On 2016-04-15 19:53, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a patch which is a r
Hi Severin,
The fix looks good to me.
I can sponsor the fix once it is reviewed.
Not sure, if I need to run the previously failed tests in the big loops
or rely on your testing.
Included Dan who did a back out into the cc-list.
Thanks a lot for taking care to redo the fix!
Thanks,
Serguei
Hi,
Here is a patch which is a redo of the fix for JDK-4858370 which got
backed out due to it causing test regressions. Specifically problems
were reported for com/sun/jdi/InvokeTest.java
and com/sun/jdi/InterfaceMethodsTest.java with the fix for JDK-4858370
applied.
Those test regressions were c
30 matches
Mail list logo
