On Mon, 26 May 2025 14:22:10 GMT, Per Minborg <pminb...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR proposes to use `JavaNioAccess::getBufferAdress` rather than >> `DirectBuffer::address` so that `Buffer` instances backed by MemorySegment >> instances can be used in classes that were not covered by >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25321 >> >> This PR passes tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests on multiple platforms and >> configurations. > > Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Address comments src/java.base/windows/classes/sun/nio/ch/WindowsAsynchronousFileChannelImpl.java line 669: > 667: > 668: } finally { > 669: IOUtil.releaseScope(buf); I don't think we can release here when there is an I/O pending. I suspect it will need to go into releaseBufferIfSubstituted. TBH, I think the change to Windows implementation of AsynchronousFileChannel are going to take more eyes and significant testing. What would you think about dropping it from this PR and creating a separate JBS issue as this is going to require more cycles that everything else in this PR. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25324#discussion_r2107608913
