(10) (M) RFR: 8174231: Factor out and share PlatformEvent and Parker code for POSIX systems

[Doug Simon]

> On 19 May 2017, at 11:15, Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017-05-19 09:15, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Magnus,
>> 
>> On 18/05/2017 8:06 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2017-05-18 09:35, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2017 5:32 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-05-18 08:25, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174231
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> webrevs:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Build-related: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8174231/webrev.top/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Build changes look  good.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Magnus! I just realized I left in the AC_MSG_NOTICE debugging prints outs - do you want me to remove them? I suppose they may be useful if something goes wrong on some platform.
>>> 
>>> I didn't even notice them. :-/
>>> 
>>> It's a bit unfortunate we don't have a debug level on the logging from configure. :-( Otherwise they would have clearly belonged there.
>>> 
>>> The AC_MSG_NOTICE messages stands out much from the rest of the configure log, so maybe it's better that you remove them. The logic itself is very simple, if the -D flags are missing then we can surely tell what happened. So yes, please remove them.
>> 
>> Webrev updated in place.
> Code looks good!
> 
> In the future, I very much prefer if you do not update webrevs in place. It's hopeless if you start reading a thread after some updates have occured, the mails don't make any sense, and it's hard to follow after-the-fact how the patch evolved.

Is there any chance openjdk code reviewing will adopt a slightly more modern process than webrevs such as Crucible where a full history of code evolution during a review is preserved?

-Doug