Any technical input is welcome, Reviewer or not. If a non-Reviewer sees valid reasons for or against a patch, that is good to know.
Cheers, Thomas On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:41 PM David Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 >
