RFR: Small cleanups in java.lang.ref

[Thomas Schatzl]

Hi Martin,

On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 07:47 -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schatzl <thomas.schatzl at oracl
> e.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 18:31 -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> > > I've been confused by NULL vs null for years.
> > > 
> > > 8203327: Small cleanups in java.lang.ref
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/jdk/Reference-cleanup/
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203327
> > 
> >   JDK-8203028 which is currently out for review
> > (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8203028/open.02) changes and
> > fixes the comments in that respect apart from other significant
> > changes to reference processing.
> > 
> > Pushing this cleanup would just cause merge conflicts for us (the
> > gc team). So this change does not seem to be required any more,
> > i.e. do you mind retracting this RFR and closing this change as
> > duplicate of the other?
> > 
> > (I apologize if my speech is too direct, I do not want to offend)
> 
> On the contrary, I'm very happy to see gc team actively maintaining
> java.lang.ref.

We are only fixing some performance issues for the current
implementation in G1 (and only incidentally for some of the other GCs)
(look for the "gc-reference-processor" label in the bug tracker) as
kind-of part of JEP 308 :)

In the future G1 may do reference processing completely concurrently
(as already mentioned elsewhere).

All these changes are and will most likely be completely unrelated to
java.lang.ref, apart from that one you just tripped over. I believe
there are no further changes in java.lang.ref needed, so gc-team
"maintenance" for that package can probably be considered "inactive"
again :P

> I've reverted changes to Reference.java
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/jdk/Reference-cleanup-1/

  okay, I did not notice that we did not touch the ReferenceQueue,
currently travelling...

The change looks good to me now, but there are probably more
knowledgable people around :)

The copyright could be updated though.

Thanks,
  Thomas