RFR: 6983747: Clean up of unused dl_mutex lock.

[David Holmes]

On 25/03/2015 3:13 AM, harold seigel wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
> Should this comment be removed from both files?
>
>    // Glibc-2.0 libdl is not MT safe. If you are building with any glibc,
>    // chances are you might want to run the generated bits against
> glibc-2.0
>    // libdl.so, so always use locking for any version of glibc.

Yes that should also be deleted - it was part of the incorrect copy done 
by 6721093. And as per 6626677 glibc was fixed at version 2.1 back in 1997.

Since this was all investigated we had the AIX code added, so we need to 
get one of the AIX folk to confirm that no locking is needed around 
dlsym on that platform. (I would be very surprised if it were needed :) )

Thanks,
David

> Thanks, Harold
>
> On 3/24/2015 1:01 PM, Max Ockner wrote:
>> This was not intentional. I thought the comment was referring to the
>> line containing dl_mutex, but it was not. I put the comment back in.
>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/6983747.2/
>> Thanks,
>> Max
>>
>> On 3/24/2015 12:35 PM, Dmitry Dmitriev wrote:
>>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> Can you please tell me, you intentionally delete following comment
>>> from os_linux.cpp file:
>>> 4680   // else it defaults to CLOCK_REALTIME
>>>
>>> It seems that this comment should be leaved. What you think about that?
>>>
>>> I am not a reviewer.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dmitry
>>>
>>> On 24.03.2015 17:56, Max Ockner wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> please review my clean up of the unused dl_mutex lock.
>>>>
>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6983747
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mockner/6983747/
>>>> Summary: Deleted all references to the dl_mutex lock which was no
>>>> longer used.
>>>>
>>>> Tested with jtreg runtime tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Max Ockner
>>>
>>
>