On 2014-12-02, Staffan Friberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As noted in the original thread [1] about this event we split up the commit
> in 4 different steps. This is the first step that only adds the event and
> methods to send them, but the usage will be added separately for the 3 GCs
> using PLABs.
>
> B
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 10:50 -0800, Staffan Friberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As noted in the original thread [1] about this event we split up the
> commit in 4 different steps. This is the first step that only adds the
> event and methods to send them, but the usage will be added separately
> for the 3
The new webrev can be found here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser/8044591/webrev.02/
// Katja
On 12/02/2014 09:12 PM, Yekaterina Kantserova wrote:
Right! Thank you for the catch!
// Katja
- Original Message -
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Looks good to me,
Thank you for fixing it.
Fred
On 12/02/2014 08:22 PM, Yekaterina Kantserova wrote:
Hi,
Could I please have a review of this small fix.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044591
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser/8044591/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Katja
--
Looks good!
Thanks,
/Staffan
> On 3 dec 2014, at 11:01, Yekaterina Kantserova
> wrote:
>
> The new webrev can be found here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ykantser/8044591/webrev.02/
>
> // Katja
>
>
> On 12/02/2014 09:12 PM, Yekaterina Kantserova wrote:
>> Right! Thank you for the catch!
Looks good!
Staffan Friberg skrev 02/12/14 19:50:
Hi,
As noted in the original thread [1] about this event we split up the
commit in 4 different steps. This is the first step that only adds the
event and methods to send them, but the usage will be added separately
for the 3 GCs using PLABs.
Staffan, Fredric, thanks for your reviews!
// Katja
On 12/03/2014 11:04 AM, Frederic Parain wrote:
Looks good to me,
Thank you for fixing it.
Fred
On 12/02/2014 08:22 PM, Yekaterina Kantserova wrote:
Hi,
Could I please have a review of this small fix.
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/
Kevin,
Looks good for me!
-Dmitry
On 2014-11-26 16:53, KEVIN WALLS wrote:
>
> ...and an update to the webrev in the same place that also checks the
> SELinux deny_ptrace flag, another reason you can get a permission denied
> error and fail the test.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/80399
Looks good to me!
Thanks,
/peter
> On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:53, KEVIN WALLS wrote:
>
>
> ...and an update to the webrev in the same place that also checks the SELinux
> deny_ptrace flag, another reason you can get a permission denied error and
> fail the test.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~k
Thanks Dmitry and Peter!
On 03/12/2014 11:39, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Kevin,
Looks good for me!
-Dmitry
On 2014-11-26 16:53, KEVIN WALLS wrote:
...and an update to the webrev in the same place that also checks the
SELinux deny_ptrace flag, another reason you can get a permission denied
error
Serguei,
Updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8028773/webrev.02/
-Dmitry
On 2014-12-03 01:24, [email protected] wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> It is good in general modulo Staffan's comments.
>
> There are some inconsistencies:
> - the ExceptionOccurred(env) is compared
178 public static boolean canPtraceAttachOSX() throws Exception {
179 return userName.equals("root");
180 }
Ptrace isn’t the API that is doing the most vigorous access checks on OS X.
Instead the system call task_for_pid() is what causes most of the access denied
problems. So
On 02/12/2014 02:39, Chris Plummer wrote:
Sorry about the long delay in getting back to this. I ran into two
separate JPRT issues that were preventing me from testing these
changes, plus I was on vacation last week. Here's an updated webrev.
I'm not sure where we left things, so I'll just say w
Changes look good. What testing have you done?
/Staffan
> On 3 dec 2014, at 13:06, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>
> Serguei,
>
> Updated webrev
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8028773/webrev.02/
>
> -Dmitry
>
> On 2014-12-03 01:24, [email protected] wrote:
>> Dmitry,
>>
The changes in 8035000 [1] changed some common rmi testlibrary classes,
RMID.java for one, and this test no longer compiles.
The test should call RMID destroy() instead of shutdown(..).
../chhegar/s/jdk/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/RMIConnector_NPETest.java:64:
error: meth
On 03/12/2014 14:40, Chris Hegarty wrote:
:
diff --git
a/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/RMIConnector_NPETest.java
b/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/RMIConnector_NPETest.java
---
a/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/RMIConnector_NPETest.jav
Staffan,
Only manual smoke check:
opened core
jstack -v
dis couple of addresses
-Dmitry
On 2014-12-03 16:01, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> Changes look good. What testing have you done?
>
> /Staffan
>
>> On 3 dec 2014, at 13:06, Dmitry Samersoff
>> wrote:
>>
>> Serguei,
>>
>> Updated webrev
>>
>
Ok.
> On 3 dec 2014, at 16:15, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>
> Staffan,
>
> Only manual smoke check:
>
> opened core
>
> jstack -v
> dis couple of addresses
>
> -Dmitry
>
> On 2014-12-03 16:01, Staffan Larsen wrote:
>> Changes look good. What testing have you done?
>>
>> /Staffan
>>
>>> On 3
Thanks Staffan -
Yes, I've updated it to be simply canAttachOSX(). Seems likely we
should go ahead with that and possibly revisit the OSX conditions, good
to have the method there so we can make it more complete and complex
later when/if required. Right now, I think this is suitable for our
Thanks for all the reviews.
Marcus Larsson has kindly agreed to sponsor the patch.
Cheers,
Staffan
On 12/03/2014 01:21 AM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 10:50 -0800, Staffan Friberg wrote:
Hi,
As noted in the original thread [1] about this event we split up the
commit in 4 diff
On 12/3/14 6:41 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 03/12/2014 14:40, Chris Hegarty wrote:
diff --git
a/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/RMIConnector_NPETest.java
b/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/connection/RMIConnector_NPETest.java
---
a/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/c
On 12/03/2014 02:24 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi Maynard,
>
> if you don't mind please post the next mail to the mailing list
> thread. I think these problems and discussions may be helpfull for
> others as well (e.g. people doing another port).
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Maynard John
On 12/03/2014 02:40 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote:
>> On 12/02/2014 11:45 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>> Hi Maynard,
>>>
>>> did you intentionally answered only to me or can we take the discussion
>>> back to the mailing list?
>>
>> Yes, it was i
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 02:40 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2014 11:45 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Maynard,
did you intentionally answered only to me or can we take th
On 12/03/2014 12:33 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 02:40 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote:
>>> In the approximate 10 times that I re-ran my test with the "-XX:-Inline"
>>> (sometimes killing it with SIGSEGV to get a core file; sometime
On 12/03/2014 06:20 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote:
>> If you're running on Debian/Ubuntu it is probably this issue:
>> >
>> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Roadmap/KernelHardening#ptrace_Protection
>> >
>> > which can be solved by doing:
>> >
>> > echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/yama/ptrace_scope
>
Hi Chris,
Approved with some minor nits, typos which needs correction.
yes java.c follows the JDK indenting as Alan pointed out.
TooSmallStackSize.java
Copyright should be 2014,
1.
37 * stack size for the platform (as provided by the JVM error message when
a very
38 * small is used),
Hi Kumar,
On 12/3/14 10:58 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Chris,
Approved with some minor nits, typos which needs correction.
yes java.c follows the JDK indenting as Alan pointed out.
TooSmallStackSize.java
Copyright should be 2014,
Copy/paste error from example test I was referred to. I wil
I agree. Go ahead with this and hopefully we can revisit it later.
Thanks,
/Staffan
> On 3 dec 2014, at 17:17, KEVIN WALLS wrote:
>
> Thanks Staffan -
>
> Yes, I've updated it to be simply canAttachOSX(). Seems likely we should go
> ahead with that and possibly revisit the OSX conditions, go
Dmitry,
Looks good.
Thanks,
Serguei
On 12/3/14 4:06 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Serguei,
Updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dsamersoff/JDK-8028773/webrev.02/
-Dmitry
On 2014-12-03 01:24, [email protected] wrote:
Dmitry,
It is good in general modulo Staffan's comments.
Thanks!
On 03/12/2014 19:50, Staffan Larsen wrote:
I agree. Go ahead with this and hopefully we can revisit it later.
Thanks,
/Staffan
On 3 dec 2014, at 17:17, KEVIN WALLS wrote:
Thanks Staffan -
Yes, I've updated it to be simply canAttachOSX(). Seems likely we should go
ahead with that
Hi,
This is a review request for a changing a couple of characters in a
test. It's the same test I just changed with another review, I kept it
separate so as to complicate the review already in progress (it had gone
on long enough..).
The test contains an embedded utf8 character, to test a
On 12/3/2014 11:26 AM, Chris Plummer wrote:
Hi Kumar,
On 12/3/14 10:58 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hi Chris,
Approved with some minor nits, typos which needs correction.
yes java.c follows the JDK indenting as Alan pointed out.
TooSmallStackSize.java
Copyright should be 2014,
Copy/paste er
33 matches
Mail list logo
