RFR(XXS/M): 8193135 - get rid of redundant _smr_ prefix/infix in ThreadSMRSupport stuff

[Stefan Karlsson]

Looks good to me.

Thanks,
StefanK

On 2017-12-08 16:25, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This should be last of the big Thread-SMR cleanup reviews! Stefan K, this
> is one of your Thread-SMR follow-up suggestions so I need to hear from 
> you
> on this thread. Thanks!
>
> In terms of actual "new/changed" code, this is an "XXS" review. However,
> because of renaming, the changed/insert/delete counts are the size of an
> "M" review. This is another simple (but tedious) review; I found that
> the "udiffs" were easier than "frames" to verify the fix.
>
> Here is the bug:
>
>     JDK-8193135 get rid of redundant _smr_ prefix/infix in 
> ThreadSMRSupport stuff
>     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193135
>
> Here is the full webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8193135-webrev/jdk10-0-full/
>
> Because of the removal of the '_smr_' prefix/infix, some functions had
> to be moved to stay in proper sort order. I've created separate delta
> webrevs to separate the renaming from the code motion.
>
> Here is the renaming part of the review:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8193135-webrev/jdk10-0-delta-part1/
>
> Here is the code motion part of the review:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8193135-webrev/jdk10-0-delta-part2/
>
> This fix is being (over) tested with a Mach5 tier[1-5] run.
>
> The code motion part was sanity checked by extracting the pre-move code
> into a file, extracting the post-move code into another file and 
> comparing
> the two files. I didn't come up with a good way to automate the sanity
> checking of the removal of the '_smr_' prefix/infix; that was complicated
> by the fact that the two 'smr_delete()' functions were not renamed to
> 'delete()'.
>
> Thanks, in advance, for any comments, questions or suggestions.
>
> Dan