I keep getting a failure when running the tests -
test_jthread_get_all-threads failling the assertion at
test_ti_instrum.c:80
geir
On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
> While running cunit on Linux it turned out one test case fails some
> time. The fix is in tests.final.2.patch.
>
> So the last versions to be committed:
> invocation_api.final.patch
> build.final.2.patch
> tests.final.2.patch
>
> Evgueni
>
>
> On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mahaged to resolve the problem on Linux.... will update
>> build.final.patch with build.final.2.patch in a while
>>
>> On 10/8/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Oh! Ooh! I did that..... I passed cunit, somke, kernel tests on
>> > Windows and smoke, kernel tests on Linux. Unfortunately I failed to
>> > link cunit tests on Linux so far. So I disabled cunit on Linux
>> until
>> > the problem is solved. I believe it is acceptable as short term
>> > solution. I found several problems in cunit tests. I will come
>> up with
>> > my findings later (not today).
>> >
>> > Use latest patches from HARMONY-1582. They are marked as final.
>> There
>> > are three patches. One for build module, one for cunit tests and
>> one
>> > for VM itself.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Evgueni
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/6/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Nooooooo! LOL
>> > >
>> > > I'm here waiting - This will unblock a whole bunch of things :)
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the effort
>> > >
>> > > Evgueni Brevnov wrote:
>> > > > Geir,
>> > > >
>> > > > That's terrible. We have power outage....servers are down. I
>> can't
>> > > > send the patches now.... will do it tomorrow
>> > > >
>> > > > Evgueni
>> > > > On 10/5/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> woo hoo! here we go...
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
>> > > >> > Hi Evgueni,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> >> Hi All,
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> I have attached updated patch to the JIRA. It should
>> resolve remain
>> > > >> >> concerns. Andrey, could you give a green light now?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Thanks for updating the patch! I agree it it can be
>> committed, at
>> > > >> > least signatures look good. 5 revisions seem like more
>> than enough :).
>> > > >> > Anyways, I think the remaining issues can be resolved
>> with additional
>> > > >> > patches. Thanks again for the good work and your patience.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Thanks,
>> > > >> > Andrey.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Thanks
>> > > >> >> Evgueni
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On 10/4/06, Evgueni Brevnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > Andrey,
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > I see your points. I think both approaches have
>> advantages and
>> > > >> >> > disadvantages. I think it is quite hard to say which
>> approach is
>> > > >> >> > better until we play with one VM only. I still feel
>> like introducing
>> > > >> >> > one more dependence is better than spreading code
>> which deals with
>> > > >> >> > attachment among VM and TM. We really get stuck. OK,
>> just because I
>> > > >> >> > want to move forward I will do required changes to remove
>> > > >> >> > vm_create_jthread from TM. I believe that will resolve
>> all our
>> > > >> >> > disagreements and the patch will be applied soon.
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > Thanks
>> > > >> >> > Evgueni.
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > On 10/4/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > On 10/3/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > On 10/3/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > Just to be clear.... I agree with you it is more
>> > > >> convenient if
>> > > >> >> > > > > > jthread_create takes JNIEnv instead of JavaVM. It
>> > > >> reflects that
>> > > >> >> > > > > > current thread has been attached already. Do
>> you think it
>> > > >> >> makes sense
>> > > >> >> > > > > > to get rid of JNIEnv and use
>> jthread_get_JNI_env in that
>> > > >> case?
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > The jthread_* layer is designed like if it were
>> a regular JNI
>> > > >> >> > > > > application which is meant to be called from the
>> Java code,
>> > > >> hence
>> > > >> >> > > > > every function on that layer receives JNIenv. We
>> can probably
>> > > >> >> get rid
>> > > >> >> > > > > of the JNEnv parameter for jthread_* functions,
>> assuming that
>> > > >> >> TM can
>> > > >> >> > > > > always extract JNIenv for the current thread with
>> > > >> >> > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env().
>> > > >> >> > > > > My only concern would be the performance - once
>> the JNIenv is
>> > > >> >> already
>> > > >> >> > > > > known for the native part of the kernel classes
>> impl, it
>> > > >> must be
>> > > >> >> > > > > cheaper to pass JNIEnv to TM as an extra
>> parameter rather than
>> > > >> >> extract
>> > > >> >> > > > > it from the TLS again.
>> > > >> >> > > > > Other than that, I see no strong advantages in
>> keeping JNIEnv
>> > > >> >> parameter.
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > Regarding jthread_attach. I still didn't get
>> your point....
>> > > >> >> Clarify it
>> > > >> >> > > > > > please if you think jhread_attach should be
>> modified.
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > Sorry for being not clear: I think for
>> jthread_attach, we have
>> > > >> >> two options:
>> > > >> >> > > > > 1) Make JNIEnv input parameter - it must be new
>> JNIEnv that VM
>> > > >> >> > > > > pre-allocates for the new Java thread.
>> jthread_attach
>> > > >> would just
>> > > >> >> > > > > associate it with the current thread.
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > 2) Obtain JNIEnv via vm_attach() callback. In
>> this case, if
>> > > >> >> > > > > vm_attach() callback implementation needs to
>> know for which
>> > > >> >> JavaVM new
>> > > >> >> > > > > JNIenv has to be allocated, then we'll need to
>> add JavaVM as
>> > > >> >> input
>> > > >> >> > > > > parameter for jthread_attach().
>> > > >> >> > > > > I think both options should be fine, (1) would
>> probably
>> > > >> keep TM
>> > > >> >> > > > > interface a bit lighter, though (2) may look
>> more closer to
>> > > >> >> the JNI
>> > > >> >> > > > > invocation API idea.
>> > > >> >> > > > > So I think adding JavaVM specifically for
>> jthread_attach
>> > > >> may make
>> > > >> >> > > > > sense given the explanation you provided earlier.
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > The concern I would have regarding the proposed
>> jthread_attach
>> > > >> >> > > > > implementation is a call to vm_create_jthread()
>> - this call
>> > > >> >> introduces
>> > > >> >> > > > > an extra dependency of TM on vmcore that I'd
>> prefer to be
>> > > >> >> avoided. In
>> > > >> >> > > > > the original version, jthread_attach() was
>> taking jthread
>> > > >> >> argument of
>> > > >> >> > > > > the already prepared j.l.Thread.
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > I understand your concern. Unfortunately I don't
>> see what we
>> > > >> can do
>> > > >> >> > > > here. Let me explain. In the beginning you have an
>> unattached
>> > > >> >> native
>> > > >> >> > > > thread. To be able to call java code (which is
>> required for
>> > > >> >> > > > constructing j.l.Thread instance) the thread
>> should be attached
>> > > >> >> first.
>> > > >> >> > > > To be specific it should be attached to VM by
>> calling vm_attach
>> > > >> >> which
>> > > >> >> > > > will return a valid JNIEnv It is valid to use JNI
>> from that
>> > > >> moment.
>> > > >> >> > > > Obtained JNIEnv can be used to execute java code
>> and create
>> > > >> >> j.l.Thread
>> > > >> >> > > > instance. Since we do vm_attach in jthread_attach
>> we need to do
>> > > >> >> > > > vm_create_jthread inside jthread_atach as well.
>> > > >> >> > > > Of course it can be an alternative to do vm_attach
>> and
>> > > >> >> > > > vm_create_jthread outside of TM right before
>> jthread_attach.
>> > > >> >> Sure it
>> > > >> >> > > > will reduce one dependence between VM and TM. But
>> it seems like
>> > > >> >> > > > artificial action for me just because of
>> dependency....
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > Why do you think it is artificial? I would rather
>> prefer not to
>> > > >> throw
>> > > >> >> > > vm_attach event from the jthread_attach() call at
>> all than to add
>> > > >> >> > > extra dependency. The idea of jthread layer is a
>> Java face to
>> > > >> >> > > hythread, it is meant to know either a little or
>> nothing about the
>> > > >> >> > > rest of VM. It may be logical to throw vm_attach
>> call from the
>> > > >> newly
>> > > >> >> > > created thread, because there is no other way to let
>> know VM
>> > > >> the new
>> > > >> >> > > thread is created. VM attach is a different case -
>> VM already
>> > > >> knows
>> > > >> >> > > about new Java thread at the time of the
>> AttachCurrentThread call.
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > Do you think it makes sense to replace a single
>> jthread
>> > > >> >> parameter with
>> > > >> >> > > > > a variety of stuff (like thread group, name)? It
>> seems the
>> > > >> only
>> > > >> >> > > > > purpose of at these args is to be passed back to
>> VM for
>> > > >> >> > > > > vm_jthread_create(). I would suggest to change
>> this and try
>> > > >> doing
>> > > >> >> > > > > either of:
>> > > >> >> > > > > 1) Make signature of jthread_attach with 3 args,
>> JavaVM,
>> > > >> >> jthread and the daemon.
>> > > >> >> > > > Why do you want to pass daemon to TM but thread's
>> name and
>> > > >> >> group. Just
>> > > >> >> > > > because current TM doesn't need such information?
>> What if it is
>> > > >> >> > > > required to get thread name later? Say by introducing
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > I imagine you need a daemon attribute since the TM
>> is still
>> > > >> managing
>> > > >> >> > > the thread daemonality. TM is not managing thread
>> name and group -
>> > > >> >> > > they are all kept on the Java level, hence passing
>> them may be
>> > > >> >> > > excessive.
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > > jthread_get_name... What will you do in that case?
>> Let me
>> > > >> guess you
>> > > >> >> > > > will call j.l.Thread.getName. Right. Ok! In that
>> case I see no
>> > > >> >> > > > problems to call j.l.Thread.isDaemon. Do you
>> agree? So it
>> > > >> doesn't
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > As I suggested earlier, the best way to handle
>> daemonality would
>> > > >> >> > > probably be in pure Java - in j.l.Thread (or
>> > > >> j.l.VMThreadManager) or
>> > > >> >> > > whatever. You already lifted it up to the jthread
>> level, but
>> > > >> what if
>> > > >> >> > > we can go a little bit higher...
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > > seems to be a good design to pass only part of the
>> > > >> information to
>> > > >> >> > > > jthread_atach. Lets look at the signature of
>> > > >> >> AttachCurrentThread. It
>> > > >> >> > > > takes exactly these three parameters (daemon,
>> name, group)
>> > > >> >> passed as a
>> > > >> >> > > > structure. I was thinking about having exactly the
>> same
>> > > >> >> structure as
>> > > >> >> > > > third parameter of jthread_attach but it occured
>> to be more
>> > > >> >> convinient
>> > > >> >> > > > to pass them seperatly. Although I don't see
>> strong reasons
>> > > >> against
>> > > >> >> > > > having a structure a third parameter.
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > I see. Acually, I would love to keep the
>> jthread_attach func-ty at
>> > > >> >> the
>> > > >> >> > > minimum level which will be needed to handle the
>> only data that TM
>> > > >> >> > > should be aware of. We need a formal boundary
>> between jthread
>> > > >> layer
>> > > >> >> > > and vmcore (otherwise jthread won't have a much of
>> sense, one may
>> > > >> >> > > consider it just as a convenience set of functions
>> in vmcore which
>> > > >> >> are
>> > > >> >> > > doing something with threading).
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > 2) Move the implementation of vm_create_jtrhead
>> () to
>> > > >> >> > > > > thread_java_basic.c - could it be written in
>> pure JNI without
>> > > >> >> using
>> > > >> >> > > > > internal VM API like class_alloc_new_object()?
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > Yes, this can be done but it doesn't fix the
>> problem. You still
>> > > >> >> need
>> > > >> >> > > > to know about internal constructor of j.l.Thread
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > That's bad. Given what you said, now it seems that
>> the most
>> > > >> >> preferable
>> > > >> >> > > sequence for AttachCurrentThread impl still would be
>> like:
>> > > >> >> > > JNIEnv = vm_attach();
>> > > >> >> > > jthread = create_jthread(JNIenv)
>> > > >> >> > > jthread_attach(JNIEnv, jthread) // stores JNIEnv and
>> Hythread into
>> > > >> >> > > TLS, doesn't call vm_attach any longer.
>> > > >> >> > > - this is almost what we had from the beginning...
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > Thanks,
>> > > >> >> > > Andrey.
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > Thanks
>> > > >> >> > > > Evgueni
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > >> >> > > > > Andrey.
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > Thank you
>> > > >> >> > > > > > Evgueni
>> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > On 10/2/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Artem,
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback.... find my
>> inlined.....
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On 9/29/06, Artem Aliev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Evgueni,
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I got most of your changes, but still
>> disagree
>> > > >> with all
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread/jthread interface changes.
>> Could leave
>> > > >> >> interface unchanged.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > See following possible solutions, that
>> could solve
>> > > >> >> the same problems
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > without interface changes.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 1) daemon attribute is a java
>> specific. (Andrey
>> > > >> >> mentioned this already).
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Could you please move it back. to
>> the jthread
>> > > >> >> layer. It is better
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to rename
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() to
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > jthread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads().
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, I see no problems to move "daemon"
>> to java layer.
>> > > >> >> In that case:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 1) I will move
>> > > >> >> hythread_wait_for_all_nondaemon_threads() from
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > thread_init.c to one which implements
>> java layer.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > 2) I will move daemon field from
>> HyThread structure.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Agree?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Sounds good to me.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > OK, will do that.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 2) JavaVM could be retrieved from
>> JNIEnv by
>> > > >> >> jni_get_java_vm(). So
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > let the jthread_create() and others to
>> use JNIEnv
>> > > >> >> (that is passed from
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > java native method).
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The vm_attach could get old JNI env
>> and create new
>> > > >> >> one for the new thread.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The first JNIEnv is created in
>> CreateVM call and
>> > > >> >> could be passed to
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the first thread at startup.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > No, no, no. I completely disagree with
>> that!!! Why do
>> > > >> >> you like JNIEnv
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > but JavaVM. Why do you think that
>> passing JavaVM
>> > > >> >> instead of JNIEnv
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > makes TM less modular? I don't see any
>> difference
>> > > >> >> here.... It seems
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for me like a big big hack to grab
>> JNIEnv from another
>> > > >> >> thread and pass
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it to jthread_attach to perform
>> operations in the
>> > > >> >> current thread.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > TM needs to know JNIEnv, mainly for
>> managing the
>> > > >> >> references to
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > objects, throwing exceptions and calling
>> run() method of
>> > > >> >> a new thread.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > JNI spec proposes that JNIEnv is valid
>> within the given
>> > > >> >> thread, this
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is why TM holds the JNIEnv pointer at the
>> moment. This
>> > > >> >> is why TM likes
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > the JNIEnv.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Having the JNIEnv, one is able to get
>> JavaVM but not
>> > > >> >> vise versa. This
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is why TM doesn't like the JavaVM :)
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > I see your point. Only one note this is true
>> for already
>> > > >> >> attached threads...
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I agree with you that there is a design
>> flaw that the
>> > > >> >> JNIEnv is copied
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > from the parent thread to a child thread
>> during thread
>> > > >> >> creation. I
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > think it could be resolved via vm_attach()
>> hook - with
>> > > >> >> this event, VM
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > might tell the TM what the JNIEnv pointer
>> for new thread
>> > > >> >> should be. I
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > think you did that by extending the
>> vm_attach() call
>> > > >> >> with the JNIEnv**
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > argument.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > What is not completely clear is, why do
>> you have to pass
>> > > >> >> the JavaVM
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > forth and back, once from VM to TM, and
>> then back from
>> > > >> >> TM to VM again?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > If you need to know in jthread_attach,
>> which particular
>> > > >> >> VM vm_attach()
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > event is coming from, you could have
>> vm_attach like
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > vm_attach(JNIEnv* currentThreadEnv, JNIEnv**
>> > > >> >> newThreadEnv).
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > I'm a little bit confused.....Current thread
>> hasn't been
>> > > >> >> attached yet.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > So there is no JNIEnv for it yet. How it can
>> be passed as
>> > > >> >> the first
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > parameter to vm_attach()?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Then you will be always able to get the
>> JavaVM from the
>> > > >> >> JNIEnv.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > The only difference is that you are
>> currently doing
>> > > >> >> JNIEnv->JavaVM
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > conversion in the VMThreadManager, but why
>> can't you
>> > > >> >> just do this in
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > vm_attach() without changing the interface
>> of the TM?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > So far JavaVM really looks like an extra
>> knowledge that
>> > > >> >> TM doesn't
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > have to be aware of.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Moreover there is no JNIEnv when main
>> thread attaches
>> > > >> >> to VM. So we
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > should either keep it as is or change
>> original design
>> > > >> >> of TM and attach
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > thread to VM before attaching it to TM.
>> In that case
>> > > >> >> we will have
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valid JNIEnv which can be passed to
>> jthread_atatch. We
>> > > >> >> need to think
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > over it twice before changing something....
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Right. For jthread_attach, JNIenv needs to
>> be changed
>> > > >> >> from being input
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > parameter to being the output parameter.
>> The way how
>> > > >> >> JNIenv is
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > obtained by TM should be vm_attach() event.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > OK, JNIEnv is output parameter. And it
>> obtained by
>> > > >> >> vm_attach(). This
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > is exactly like I do in the patch. What I
>> don't understand
>> > > >> >> is how
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_attach knows to which VM the thread
>> should be
>> > > >> >> attached? Do you
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > suggest calling vm_attach first to create
>> JNIEnv it pass
>> > > >> >> it to
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_attach?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 4) Original classlib hythread do not use
>> > > >> >> hythread_library_t in arguments,
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > It uses following code:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread_library_t lib = GLOBAL_DATA
>> > > >> >> (default_library);
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > hythread_library_t library = thread-
>> >library;
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So could you please use the same
>> mechanism and
>> > > >> >> remove hythread_*_ex >functions.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Let's see if classlib's hythread needs
>> changing first.
>> > > >> >> It seems for me
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > such code prevents us from having multi VM.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 5. You introduce more then one jni
>> env, but still
>> > > >> >> use global variable for it.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So all changes like following:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)
>> jni_native_intf;
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv = jni_native_intf;
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > should be like:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > - JNIEnv *jenv = (JNIEnv*)
>> jni_native_intf;
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv *jenv = get_jni_env
>> (jthread_self());
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, I see. I agree that global
>> jni_native_intf should
>> > > >> >> not be used.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > There was simple reason why I altered
>> such lines.
>> > > >> >> Because I changed
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the type of jni_native_intf and no
>> casting operator
>> > > >> >> is needed now. To
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > be honest I think get_jni_env
>> (jthread_self()) can be
>> > > >> >> good as temporary
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > solution only. Lets wait for design of
>> multi VM and
>> > > >> >> fix it according
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > to it.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > While we are in JNI code, we always have
>> the JNIenv (at
>> > > >> >> least
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > initially it comes from Java code). If we
>> consider VM
>> > > >> >> code as if it
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > was a JNI application, then it seems like
>> we should be
>> > > >> >> just passing
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > JNIEnv as a parameter to all functions in
>> VM. Or, we can
>> > > >> >> be taking it
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > from TLS (via jthread_self()), depending
>> on which way is
>> > > >> >> faster...
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > Agree.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 6). And small remarks:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init1(JavaVM_Internal * java_vm,
>> > > >> >> JavaVMInitArgs * vm_arguments);
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > +jint vm_init2(JNIEnv_Internal *
>> jni_env);
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Could you make names more meaningful,
>> then 1,2,3...?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, will do that.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > class VM_thread {
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ...
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > + JNIEnv_Internal * jni_env;
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The jthread already has the jni_env
>> pointer, you do
>> > > >> >> not need to
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > duplicate it here.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > forexample by using
>> > > >> >> jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self());
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes I know. I don't see any problems
>> here. Some times
>> > > >> >> it is much more
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > convenient to get JNIEnv from VM_thread
>> structure (and
>> > > >> >> faster) instead
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of doing jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self
>> ()). So I
>> > > >> >> need strong
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > arguments for removing it. Again it
>> seems that should
>> > > >> >> be addressed in
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > design of multi VM. So lets forget about
>> it for a
>> > > >> >> while...
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I think that the data duplication would
>> always serve as
>> > > >> >> a potential
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > source of errors - while updating one copy
>> of object,
>> > > >> >> you may forget
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to update the other, often resulting into
>> a strange
>> > > >> >> behavior of the
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > whole application. Let's see what are the
>> specific
>> > > >> >> performance
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > concerns that have to be addressed. To get
>> VM_thread
>> > > >> >> structure, you
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > would eventually go to the TLS, just like
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self() would do.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > If there is already VM_thread structure for
>> some reasons
>> > > >> >> then there
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > will be no extra access to TLS. It is
>> definitely much
>> > > >> more in
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > jthread_get_JNI_env(jthread_self() than just
>> one TLS
>> > > >> >> access and one
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > dereferncing. I don't think it is a really
>> big problem
>> > > >> >> now. Do you
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > agree to look at this later. I guess multi VM
>> > > >> >> implementation will
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > alter it in any case.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > Thanks
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > Evgueni
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Artem
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > I suppose two days silence means
>> that there is no
>> > > >> >> objects (maybe
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > interest) against proposed patch. I
>> would suggest
>> > > >> >> to commit it ASAP.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It really works! There are some
>> cases when current
>> > > >> >> VM crashes but the
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > patch fixes it. I can work on
>> bringing cunit tests
>> > > >> >> to live as soon as
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the patch is committed.... This is
>> just my
>> > > >> >> understanding.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr.
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > So where are we here?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:41 AM,
>> Evgueni Brevnov
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/06, Weldon Washburn
>> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 9/26/06, Evgueni Brevnov
>> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On 9/27/06, Andrey Chernyshev
>> > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > (3)
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > One more lock is added -
>> > > >> >> hythread_lib_lock. How is that differ
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> from
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the hythread_global_lock
>> that we already
>> > > >> >> have? Each extra lock
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to the
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > system may add more
>> possibilities for
>> > > >> >> deadlocks, as well as can
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > negatively impact the
>> scalability (unless
>> > > >> >> some of the existing
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locks
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > are split).
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_lib_lock acquires
>> exactly the same
>> > > >> >> lock as
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > hythread_global_lock.
>> Probably I miss
>> > > >> >> something but we need to be
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > compatible with IBM threading
>> library now.
>> > > >> >> This library has such
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > function. That's why I added
>> it. Sounds
>> > > >> right?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Well, this sort of, kind of
>> sounds right but
>> > > >> >> not quite. Its a
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> little more
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> subtle than being compatible
>> with IBM
>> > > >> >> threading library. The
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> first goal is
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to identify the parts of IBM
>> threading
>> > > >> >> library that are JVM
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> independent. It
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> makes sense for DRLVM to be
>> compatible with
>> > > >> >> the independent
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> parts. This
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> should be a nobrainer.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> The parts of IBM threading
>> library that
>> > > >> >> assume a specific JVM
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> will be a problem. We will
>> need to find a
>> > > >> >> solution that is
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> endorsed by all
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the stakeholders (including J9
>> folks). The
>> > > >> >> hythread_global_lock
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> falls into
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> this category. For starts, I
>> would like to
>> > > >> >> see a concise
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> description from
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the portlib owners on what
>> > > >> >> hythread_global_lock protects, which
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locks have
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to be held before grabbing this
>> lock, are
>> > > >> >> there any restrictions
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> on what
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> system calls can be made while
>> holding this
>> > > >> >> lock (like sleep or
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wait), etc.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weldon, I completely agree with
>> what your are
>> > > >> >> saying. It's common
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem of current hythread that
>> should be
>> > > >> >> resolved some how. I just
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > go inline with current
>> implementation and
>> > > >> >> added two missing functions.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Missing these can lead to the
>> same problems as
>> > > >> >> with hythread_exit
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussed in another thread
>> "[drlvm]
>> > > >> >> [launcher] Executable hangs".
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> To get a better idea what's in the
>> > > >> >> patch.diff, I printed it out.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Its 120+
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> pages. Quite a big patch!
>> Most of it looks
>> > > >> >> like straight forward
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> JNI
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> interface glue. There are some
>> tricky
>> > > >> >> parts. I would like to
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> know the
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> design review process for these
>> parts. Using
>> > > >> >> grep, I found 20
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> locations
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> where ...suspend_enable... and
>> > > >> >> ...suspend_disable... have been
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> added. And
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 25 locations where enable/
>> disable have been
>> > > >> >> removed. Failure in
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> this logic
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> can lead to incorrect reference
>> pointer
>> > > >> >> enumeration. These are
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> probably the
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hardest bugs to find. Please
>> tell us who has
>> > > >> >> looked at this code
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> in depth.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Only me and you :-) Honetsly I
>> think it
>> > > >> >> happpens now....
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Are there any known design
>> flaws in it?
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can think of two possible
>> problems we may
>> > > >> >> want to discuss.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Should native threads have
>> "daemon" status
>> > > >> >> or its completely java
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > notion? This is TM related thing.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Should we attach thread to VM
>> before
>> > > >> >> attaching it to TM by calling
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > jthread_atatch OR jthread_attach
>> should
>> > > >> >> callback VM to attach a thread
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to it? I didn't change original
>> design of TM
>> > > >> >> here ...... it implements
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > second choice.
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I also notice APIs called
>> > > >> tmn_suspend_enable(),
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hythread_suspend_enable()
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> -- are these simply different
>> names for the
>> > > >> >> same binary
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> executible. Or
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> different binaries that do the
>> same thing??
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, this is not just different
>> names.
>> > > >> >> tm_suspend_enable asserts that
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread is in disabled state
>> before calling
>> > > >> >> hythread_suspend_enable (in
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > debug mode only).
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Evgueni
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Weldon Washburn
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Intel Middleware Products
>> Division
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > --
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > --
>> > > >> >> > > > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> > > >> >> > > > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > > Terms of use :
>> > > >> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > --
>> > > >> >> > > Andrey Chernyshev
>> > > >> >> > > Intel Middleware Products Division
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> mailing.html
>> > > >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> mailing.html
>> > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/
>> mailing.html
>> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
