On 11/03/2016 9:38 PM, Cheleswer Sahu wrote:
Thanks Dmitry and Thomas for reviews. After adding space I will request for
the push.
Consider this Reviewed.
But this needs to pushed to hs-rt and currently the webrev is against
jdk9/dev.
Thanks,
David
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
HYPERLINK
"http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecsahu/8151509/webrev.01/"http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~csahu/8151509/webrev.01/
Regards,
Cheleswer
From: Thomas Stüfe [mailto:thomas.stu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:39 PM
To: Dmitry Dmitriev
Cc: Cheleswer Sahu; HYPERLINK
"mailto:serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net"serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net;
HYPERLINK
"mailto:hotspot-runtime-...@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 <HYPERLINK
"mailto:thomas.stu...@gmail.com"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 <HYPERLINK
"mailto: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.
Webrev link: HYPERLINK
"http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecsahu/8151509/"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
