> Please review this PR for fixing JDK-8287281. > > I chose a different solution than the one suggested. Looking at all callers > of `Handshake::execute`, it seems that only one depends on `target == > current`. The rest special case that by calling `is_handshake_safe_for` and > `do_thread` directly. I converted the only instance of `Handshake::execute` > with `target == current` to just directly call `do_thread`. > > Furthermore we now explicitly check for this case in `Handshake::execute` > with an assert and document that this should not be done. > > Finally: Should `VirtualThreadGetThreadClosure` and its `do_thread()` body > be inlined instead? We can do this in this PR, imho, but I'm hoping to get > some input on this. > > > Currently running tier1-5 to check if I'm missing something.
Johan Sjölén has updated the pull request incrementally with three additional commits since the last revision: - do_thread(target) not self - Remove checks for is_handshake_for, instead call Handshake::execute - Switch order of handshake check ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8992/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8992/files/b40577f0..bf75d4c8 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=8992&range=03 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=8992&range=02-03 Stats: 15 lines in 3 files changed: 0 ins; 8 del; 7 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8992.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/8992/head:pull/8992 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8992
