Hi all, I did the new version that calls FatalError if JNI fails a call. This has the advantage of not having to complicate the Java tests at all, while adding the post-JNI call checks.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.03/ Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303 Thanks all! Jc On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM Chris Plummer <chris.plum...@oracle.com> wrote: > I'm pretty sure changes that only affect tests can be any priority. But > still, be a lot more cautious the closer we get to release. > > Chris > > On 7/26/18 12:15 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > > We entered RDP2 today (07.26). So only P1 and P2 bug fixes allowed. > > Dan > > > On 7/26/18 3:14 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com wrote: > > Yes, of course it has to be well tested before the push. > Does it make sense to plan it to push to 11 (after th testing is done)? > > Thanks, > Serguei > > > On 7/26/18 12:08, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > > Please make sure this fix is well tested in Mach5 prior to pushing. > In particular, I'm focused on reducing the noise in Mach5 tier[1-3] > so adding any new failures there will make me grumpy :-) > > Dan > > > On 7/26/18 3:03 PM, JC Beyler wrote: > > Hi all, > > With the FatalError idea, here is the webrev to consider, note it no > longer changes the tests. If a JNI call fails, then we call FatalError. > > Let me know what you think: > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.01/ > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303 > > Thanks! > Jc > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM serguei.spit...@oracle.com < > serguei.spit...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jc, >> >> Good idea. >> I was thinking about something like this. >> >> Thanks, >> Serguei >> >> >> On 7/26/18 10:40, JC Beyler wrote: >> >> Hi Serguei, >> >> As I was looking at another test bug ( >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191519); the proposal for that >> bug is to have a JNI call to FatalError to provoke a failure. >> >> If we went down that route, this webrev is simpler, no? Instead of >> setting failure_status and checking it later; just fail fatally and be done >> with it, no? That way, the tests in Java land don't have to be changed >> actually, no? >> >> What would we prefer for tests? Remember there was a failure and test it >> later or fail fast via JNI's FatalError? >> >> Thanks, >> Jc >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:04 AM serguei.spit...@oracle.com < >> serguei.spit...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jc, >>> >>> It looks good to me. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Serguei >>> >>> >>> On 7/26/18 09:58, JC Beyler wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The tests in the HeapMonitor subsystem has a lot of JNI calls. There is >>> a need for verification and testing if anything in the JNI subsystem failed >>> unexpectedly. >>> >>> Here is a webrev that tracks if a JNI call does fail and the tests will >>> fail if any JNI call does fail. >>> >>> Could I have a few reviews please for: >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.00/ >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jc >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> Jc >> >> >> > > -- > > Thanks, > Jc > > > > > > -- Thanks, Jc
