RFR: 8265750: Fatal error in safepoint.cpp after backport of 8258414

[Jaroslav Bachorík]

Hi Igor,

Thanks, I set the labels. I am fairly sure the issue is not affecting
neither 16 nor 17. For 17 the fix was supervised, tested and pushed by
the Oracle JFR team.
For 16, the backport was a clean application of the same patch - also
the GH pre commit checks didn't report any failures.

-JB-

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:03 PM Igor Ignatev <igor.ignatyev at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jaroslav,
>
> if the issues doesn't exist (which is somewhat different from 'crash not happening') in 16 and 17, you might want to add '16-na' and '17-na' labels to show that these releases aren't affected.
>
> -- Igor
>
> > On Apr 23, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Jaroslav Bachorík <jaroslav.bachorik at datadoghq.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Severin,
> >
> > This 11u only problem. In 16 and 17 this crash is not happening. The
> > bug has 'Affects Version/s' set to 11 - is there anything else that
> > should be set there?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -JB-
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 6:31 PM Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 17:43 +0200, Jaroslav Bachorík wrote:
> >>> Please, review this backout patch for a backport causing fatal error.
> >>>
> >>> JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8265750
> >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8265750/webrev/
> >>>
> >>> The backout changes also revert the change introduced by
> >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8265718 as the affected code
> >>> is not present any more.
> >>>
> >>> Tier 1 tests are passing on linux x64 but I have no windows machine
> >>> ready for JDK build and tests (as was obvious from the breakage ...).
> >>> So, if someone could do a test run on windows x64 (at least) I would
> >>> greatly appreciate it.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure this is the right bug to use. If JDK-8265750 is going to
> >> be a backout of JDK-8258414 in jdk head, then this would be OK. If this
> >> is an OpenJDK 11.0.12 only problem it would be OK too, but the bug
> >> doesn't say (it should say so if so). What was the course of action in
> >> jdk 17 and jdk 16?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Severin
> >>
>