Dmitry is right, at least I am only a committer, not a "R"eviewer.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Dmitry Dmitriev < dmitry.dmitr...@oracle.com> wrote: > Cheleswer, thank you! But I think you need a "R"eviewer for that change > before push. > > Dmitry > > > On 11.03.2016 14:38, Cheleswer Sahu wrote: > > Thanks Dmitry and Thomas for reviews. After adding space I will request > for the push. > > > > Regards, > > Cheleswer > > > > *From:* Dmitry Dmitriev > *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 5:00 PM > *To:* Cheleswer Sahu; Thomas Stüfe > *Cc:* serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net; > hotspot-runtime-...@openjdk.java.net > *Subject:* Re: RFR[9u-dev]: 8151509: In check_addr0() function pointer is > not updated correctly > > > > Hi Cheleswer, > > Please, add space between SIZE_FORMAT and " because C++11 requires a space > between literal and identifier. Not need a new webrev for that. > > Thanks, > Dmitry > > On 11.03.2016 12:31, Cheleswer Sahu wrote: > > Hi Thomas, Dmitry, > > > > Thanks for your review comments. My answers are below for your review > comments > > > > 1873 if( 0 != ret % sizeof(prmap_t)){ > 1874 break; > 1875 } > > > >> For this it has been thought that mostly read() will return the desired > number of bytes, but only in case if something goes wrong and read() will > not able to read the data, it will return lesser number of bytes, which > contains the partial data of “prmap_t” structure. The reason could be like > file is corrupted, in such cases we don’t want to read anymore and feel > it’s safe to skip the rest of file. > > > > 2) Just interesting, do you really need to set memory to 0 by memset? > > >> I thought this it is good to have a clean buffer every time we read > something into it, but it’s really not that much required as we are reading > a binary data. So I am removing this line from the code. > > > > For rest of the comments I have made correction in the code. The new > webrev is available in the below location > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~csahu/8151509/webrev.01/ > > > > > > Regards, > > Cheleswer > > > > *From:* Thomas Stüfe [mailto:thomas.stu...@gmail.com > <thomas.stu...@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:39 PM > *To:* Dmitry Dmitriev > *Cc:* Cheleswer Sahu; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net; > hotspot-runtime-...@openjdk.java.net > *Subject:* Re: RFR[9u-dev]: 8151509: In check_addr0() function pointer is > not updated correctly > > > > (Sorry, pressed Send button too early) > > Just wanted to add that > > 1873 if( 0 != ret % sizeof(prmap_t)){ > 1874 break; > 1875 } > > may be a bit harsh, as it skips the entire mapping in case read() stopped > reading in a middle of a record. You could just continue to read until you > read the rest of the record. > > Kind Regards, Thomas > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Cheleswer, > > > > thanks for fixing this. > > > > Some more issues: > > > > - 1866 char *mbuff = (char *) calloc(read_chunk, sizeof(prmap_t) + 1); > > > > Why the "+1"? It is unnecessary and causes the allocation to be 200 bytes > larger than necessary. > > > > - 1880 st->print("Warning: Address: " PTR_FORMAT ", Size: %dK, > ",p->pr_vaddr, p->pr_size/1024); > > > > Format specifier for Size is wrong.%d is int, but p->pr_size is size_t. > Theoretical truncation for mappings larger than 4g*1024. > > (But I know this coding was there before) > > > > Beside those points, I think both points of Dmitry are valid. > > > > Also, I find > > > > > > Kind Regards, Thomas > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Dmitry Dmitriev < > <dmitry.dmitr...@oracle.com>dmitry.dmitr...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi Cheleswer, > > Looks good, but I have questions/comments about other code in this > function: > 1) I think that "::close(fd);" should be inside "if (fd >= 0) {". > 2) Just interesting, do you really need to set memory to 0 by memset? > > Thanks, > Dmitry > > > On 10.03.2016 13:43, Cheleswer Sahu wrote: > > > Hi, > > Please review the code changes for > <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151509> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151509. > > Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~csahu/8151509/ < > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecsahu/8151509/> > > Bug Brief: > > In check_addr0(), pointer ”p” is not updated correctly, because of this > it was reading only first two entries from buffer. > > Regards, > > Cheleswer > > > > > > > > > > >