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

[Dmitry Dmitriev]

Sangheon, yes, this looks good!

Thanks,
Dmitry

On 09.12.2015 23:06, sangheon.kim wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>