Thank you, David and Serguei, for reviewing this change!
Best regards,
Daniil
On 6/12/19, 10:21 PM, "David Holmes" <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi Daniil,
These changes seem quite reasonable. In hindsight splitting the
command-line based on spaces was bound to hit problems with arguments
containing spaces. :(
Thanks for fixing.
David
On 13/06/2019 3:50 am, Daniil Titov wrote:
> Hi David and Serguei,
>
> Could you please have a look at this change? This fix is related with the
changes [3] that you reviewed back in February.
>
> Mach5 sun/tools/jcmd, serviceability/dcmd/framework, jdk_svc,
hotspot_serviceability, tier1, tier2 and tier3 tests passed.
>
> Thanks a lot!
> --Daniil
>
> On 6/10/19, 4:56 PM, "serviceability-dev on behalf of Daniil Titov"
<serviceability-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net on behalf of
daniil.x.ti...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Please review the change that fixes jcmd process name matching on
Linux platform.
>
> After changes [3] , on Linux platform the proc filesystem is used to
find a Java process, however, sun.tools.ProcessHelper class,
> introduced in that change, didn't take into account the presence of
module whitespace options ( e.g. --patch-module) or the
> fact that some values of Java options could contain whitespaces.
>
> The latter problem is fixed by keeping '\0' as a separator for
command line arguments read from /proc/{pid}/cmdline rather than
> replacing it with a whitespace. The former problem is fixed by
making sun.tools.ProcessHelper aware of these module whitespace
> options (--add-opens, --add-exports,--add-reads, --add-modules,
--patch-module,--limit-modules, or --upgrade-module-path) as well
> as of the case when a source-file mode is used or when --module
options is used in "--<name>=<value>" format.
>
> Testing: sun/tools/jcmd and serviceability/dcmd/framework tests
succeeded in Mach5. jdk_svc, tier1, tier2, and tier3 tests are in progress.
>
>
> [1] Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dtitov/8225543/webrev.01/
> [2] Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225543
> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205654
>
> Thanks!
> --Daniil
>
>
>
>
>
>
