I'm in favor of what the change is meant to accomplish. I haven't had time to analyze the change in detail, and I may not get time to do so. But I'm not a reviewer in any case, so maybe that doesn't matter too much.
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 1:16 AM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ping... > > Guys, I need some feedback on this. If we do not fix this issue, we may want > to roll back the use of posix_spawn() as a default and return to vfork for > JDK13. > > The fix has been tested in our nightlies for two nights in a row and did not > show any errors. > > Cheers, Thomas > > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> (old mail thread: >> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2019-May/060139.html) >> >> May I please have your reviews and opinions for the following bug fix: >> >> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223777 >> cr: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8223777-posix_spawn-no-exec-error-alternate-impl/webrev.00/webrev/ >> >> --- >> >> The fix implements Florians proposal: the jspawnhelper will signal its >> aliveness to the parent process the moment it gains control. If the parent >> process does not get the signal, it assumes exec'ing the jspawnhelper never >> worked. >> >> I only do this for posix_spawn mode, out of cautiousness. >> >> (Note that I kept the fix as minimal as possible. I found a minor bug and >> some improvement possibilities and opened follow up issues to track them: >> JDK-8224180 and JDK-8224181). >> >> Thanks, Thomas >> >> -- - DML
