> On Mar 15, 2016, at 2:43 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > On 15/03/2016 4:34 PM, Kim Barrett wrote: >>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 2:46 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137165 >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8137165/webrev/ >>> >>> This isn't a fix per-se but some additional diagnostic code to try and >>> detect the conditions where the bug might manifest. The basic failure mode >>> was: >> >> Changes look good. >> >> Good cleanup with the sigemptyset calls. Pedantic is a good thing when >> dealing with POSIX. > > Thanks for the Review. > >> Since this isn’t an actual fix, should the change be associated with a >> different bug number? >> Or are you treating this as the moral equivalent of resolving as not >> reproducible? > > I toyed with creating a subtask for this change and leaving the original > open, but realistically I think it may turn out to be "not reproducible". I > can be swayed if you think a new subtask would be better?
Just making sure I understood your intent. It doesn’t look like there’s so much information in this one that creating a new one with a reference would be a big problem if it ever shows up again. Go ahead as is.
