[9] RFR(S): 8059846: InstanceKlass should use MutexLockerEx to acquire OsrList_lock

[David Holmes]

Tobias's change is fine but I get worried when I see:

// This is a short non-blocking critical region, so the no safepoint 
check is ok.

as that is only one of the conditions needed to allow locking without 
safepoint checks!

David H.

On 15/10/2014 12:58 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> Looks good. Should be reviewed by runtime too since changes are in
> instanceKlass.cpp
>
> Thanks,
> Vlaidmir
>
> On 10/14/14 5:54 AM, David Chase wrote:
>> Hello Tobias,
>>
>> Not a Reviewer here, but it looks correct to me.
>> One question — above I see a NEEDS_CLEANUP notation.
>> Do we know (does someone know?) if it refers to this change?
>> If so, we could remove that :-).
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 2014-10-14, at 3:55 AM, Tobias Hartmann
>> <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> please review this small code cleanup that replaces the explicit
>>> locking of OsrList_lock by a MutexLockerEx instantiation.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059846
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8059846/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tobias
>>