RFR(XS) 8145027: Exclude NUMAInterleaveGranularity from TestOptionsWithRanges.java

[sangheon.kim]

Hi Dmitry,

Thank you for looking at this.
How about a comment like below?
          /*
+         * JDK-8145027
+         * Temporarily exclude as current range/constraint is not 
enough for some option combinations.
+         */
+        excludeTestRange("NUMAInterleaveGranularity");
+
+        /*

Thanks,
Sangheon


On 12/09/2015 11:46 AM, Dmitry Dmitriev wrote:
> Hi Sangheon,
>
> Looks good to me. Just one small comment - can you please add a 
> comment with the reason why this flag is excluded(with corresponding 
> JBS numbers)? Not need a new webrev for that if you decide to 
> implement my comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitry
>
> On 09.12.2015 22:11, sangheon.kim wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Could I get some reviews to exclude 'NUMAInterleaveGranularity' from 
>> TestOptionsWithRanges.java?
>>
>> Recent patch for JDK-8142341 includes an implementation of 
>> range/constraint for NUMAInterleaveGranularity and this change 
>> enabled to test the flag by TestOptionsWithRanges.java. And this test 
>> found 2 bugs (JDK-8144949 and JDK-8145000) which are now integration 
>> blocker.
>>
>> JDK-8144949 occurs only under specific case(32bit binary + server 
>> mode) and allocation related routine is not safe.
>> JDK-8145000 happened with valid value and I suspect that allocation 
>> related routine is not safe.
>> JDK-8142341 has many other flags implemented.
>>
>> In this regard, I hope to exclude the flag from the test rather than 
>> back out JDK-8142341.
>> And I will include this flag when I have stable range/constraint or 
>> related routines enhanced.
>>
>> CR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145027
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sangheki/8145027/webrev.00/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sangheon
>>
>>
>>
>