RFR: 6983747: Clean up of unused dl_mutex lock.

[Coleen Phillimore]

Goetz or Volker, did you see this?
thanks!
Coleen

On 3/25/15, 12:19 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>