Oh my good! And I've also forgot to add Ralf as a Contributer :(:(:(
I really desperately need a vacation! Sorry Ralf, Volker On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > thanks for your help, but I've just pushed the fix now. > > @Thomas: sorry, I really apologize, but I've just realized that I've > forgot to add you as a Reviewer :( I'll promise to look more carefully > next time. > > Regards, > Volker > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:01 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com > <serguei.spit...@oracle.com> wrote: >> Hi Ralf, >> >> I think, you have to consider it reviewed. >> Sorry, I was not clear no new webrev is needed. >> >> Do you need a sponsor for the push? >> >> Thanks, >> Serguei >> >> >> >> On 7/24/18 06:32, Schmelter, Ralf wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> here is the update webref with the fixed copyright: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8205608.v5/ >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Ralf >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: serguei.spit...@oracle.com [mailto:serguei.spit...@oracle.com] >>> Sent: Freitag, 20. Juli 2018 23:04 >>> To: Chris Plummer <chris.plum...@oracle.com>; Schmelter, Ralf >>> <ralf.schmel...@sap.com>; serviceability-dev@openjdk.java.net; Stuefe, >>> Thomas <thomas.stu...@sap.com> >>> Subject: Re: RFR (S) 8205608: Fix 'frames()' in ThreadReferenceImpl.c to >>> prevent quadratic runtime behavior >>> >>> On 7/20/18 13:44, Chris Plummer wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7/20/18 1:40 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ralf, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/20/18 07:28, Schmelter, Ralf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Sergue, >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ve updated the webref: >>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8205608.v4/ >>>>> >>>>> The copyright year in ThreadReferenceImpl.c still has to be 2018, not >>>>> 2008. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8205608.v4/test/jdk/com/sun/jdi/Frames2Test.java.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 72 if (newDepth == -1_000) { >>>>> 73 // Pop some frames so there is room on the stack >>>>> for the >>>>> 74 // call (including println()). >>>>> 75 notifyRecursionEnded(); >>>>> 76 } >>>>> >>>>> I have a concern on potential issue mentioned in the comment above. >>>>> Should a StackOverflowError be expected here? >>>>> >>>>> 79 } catch (StackOverflowError e) { >>>>> 80 // Use negative depth to indicate the recursion has >>>>> ended. >>>>> 81 return -1; >>>>> 82 } >>>>> >>>>> What is going to happen if the StackOverflowError was really caught >>>>> above? >>>> >>>> The SOE is really caught in the above code. I returns -1, and starts >>>> the unwinding of the stack. After 1000 frames have been popped via >>>> returns, notifyRecursionEnded() will be called. The pops are so >>>> notifyRecursionEnded() can be called without worry of another SOE. >>> >>> Got it, thanks Chris. >>> >>> So, I'm Okay with the fix assuming the copyright year is fixed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Serguei >> >>
