Thank you all. I just pushed.
I set David as contributor since he provided the original patch.
Cheers, Thomas
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:11 AM Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2018 13:45, Roger Riggs wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > The webrev looks fine.
> >
> > Please remove the @author tag in the
On 31/10/2018 13:45, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Thomas,
The webrev looks fine.
Please remove the @author tag in the Linux (2nd) test block in Basic.java.
Author tags are losing favor and there's no need to repeat it.
I agree, no need to repeat it here.
The webrev otherwise looks good to me too
Hi Roger,
thanks! I'll remove the author tag before pushing.
I ran the change through jdk-submit too, without problems, though I
assume they are a subset of the tests you ran. I was not yet able to
run them through our tests, due to technical problems. Will do so in
the next days.
Thanks,
Hi Thomas,
The webrev looks fine.
Please remove the @author tag in the Linux (2nd) test block in Basic.java.
Author tags are losing favor and there's no need to repeat it.
I ran the change through our tests without errors.
I'd give it another 24hours before pushing in case anyone else wants
Hi Roger,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:46 PM Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 10/29/2018 12:04 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:45 PM Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> In an abundance of caution, I was thinking that it would be a change right
> at
Hi Thomas,
On 10/29/2018 12:04 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi Roger,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:45 PM Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Thomas,
In an abundance of caution, I was thinking that it would be a change right
at the beginning of a new release so it gets the most exercise and
users in early
Hi Roger,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:45 PM Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> In an abundance of caution, I was thinking that it would be a change right
> at the beginning of a new release so it gets the most exercise and
> users in early access, etc.
>
Okay, I understand that.
Over the
Hi Thomas,
In an abundance of caution, I was thinking that it would be a change right
at the beginning of a new release so it gets the most exercise and
users in early access, etc.
And before that it needs to be put into more regular usage and
some more unusual environments. The default is
I'm in favor, for whatever that's worth.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 5:33 AM Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> the more I mull over this, the more I would prefer to do the jump for
> real and attempt switch the default to posix_spawn() for Linux.
>
> We have theoretically established that both
Hi all,
the more I mull over this, the more I would prefer to do the jump for
real and attempt switch the default to posix_spawn() for Linux.
We have theoretically established that both glibc down to 2.4 and
muslc since always did "the right thing".
We still have time in the 12 time line to
Hi Roger,
On Wed 24. Oct 2018 at 21:39, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Sorry, I had the incantation for multiple tests wrong.
> Separate test configurations need to be in separate /* */ comment blocks.
> BTW, it creates separate .jtr files for each block.
>
> diff --git
Hi Thomas,
Sorry, I had the incantation for multiple tests wrong.
Separate test configurations need to be in separate /* */ comment blocks.
BTW, it creates separate .jtr files for each block.
diff --git a/test/jdk/java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java
Hi Roger,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:23 PM Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thanks for adding the test.
>
> There's a feature of jtreg that was exposed a couple of month ago that
> can be used to deal with running the test too many times.
>
> There can be multiple @test blocks with different
Oops, it dropped the newlines.
* @run main/othervm/timeout=300 Basic
* @run main/othervm/timeout=300
-Djdk.lang.Process.launchMechanism=fork Basic
*
* @test * @requires (os.family == "linux")
* @run main/othervm/timeout=300
-Djdk.lang.Process.launchMechanism=posix_spawn
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for adding the test.
There's a feature of jtreg that was exposed a couple of month ago that
can be used to deal with running the test too many times.
There can be multiple @test blocks with different @requires.
* @run main/othervm/timeout=300 Basic * @run
Hi all,
version 2 of Davids patch, with test changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/JDK-8212828-posix_spawn.patch/webrev.01/webrev/
Executed the test on my local Ubuntu box, works fine. Submit job runs.
About the test: I added a new line:
* @run main/othervm/timeout=300 Basic
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:56 PM David Lloyd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:52 AM Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I think we need some form of test, as Alan indicated.
> >
> > java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java should run through. Actually, I
> > would like it if we would run
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:52 AM Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> I think we need some form of test, as Alan indicated.
>
> java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java should run through. Actually, I
> would like it if we would run this test for all valid enabled launch
> mechanisms, regardless which
Hi David,
I think we need some form of test, as Alan indicated.
java/lang/ProcessBuilder/Basic.java should run through. Actually, I
would like it if we would run this test for all valid enabled launch
mechanisms, regardless which one is default. Can this be done?
To save time I will only rerun
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:05 AM Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Review:
>
> - copyright dates need updating on the C-sources
>
> - I opt for "#if defined(__solaris__) || defined(_ALLBSD_SOURCE) ||
> defined(_AIX) || defined(__linux__)" to be removed completely from
> unix-specific source files. The ifdef
jdk-submit tests were clean.
..Thomas
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 7:51 AM Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> For the convenience of the reviewers, here webrev and bug:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/JDK-8212828-posix_spawn.patch/webrev/
>
>
On 24/10/2018 06:51, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
For the convenience of the reviewers, here webrev and bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/JDK-8212828-posix_spawn.patch/webrev/
submit tests are currently running.
Adding the posix_spawn to
Hi all,
Basic considerations:
This patch enables an untested function to the end user. I am unsure
about this. I would feel better if we had something like
"-XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions" for the JDK.
That said, I can see the merit in having this switch to play around
with. It would it make
For the convenience of the reviewers, here webrev and bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212828
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/JDK-8212828-posix_spawn.patch/webrev/
submit tests are currently running.
..Thomas
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:27 PM David Lloyd wrote:
>
> My
I'm not really sure TBH. I did some manual testing; beyond that, in a
way, the point of this change is to *get* more real-world testing. I
haven't yet found any existing tests which try out the various process
creation options for a given platform, however.
Maybe an idea would be to have a
Hi David, et.al.
What would be the rest of the plan for testing?
Usually, changes come with tests and a plan.
What build parameters are needed to run a full set of tests with the change?
Are there build changes needed?
Thanks, Roger
On 10/23/2018 03:26 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
My plans to try
My plans to try jdk/submit have fallen through unfortunately, as I
cannot seem to gain direct or indirect access to that system. So I
guess I'm looking for any reviews on this patch now. Thomas has
volunteered to sponsor.
Thanks.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Here
27 matches
Mail list logo
