hg: jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/jdk: 7088989: Improve the performance for T4 by utilizing the newly provided crypto APIs

[Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng]

When I inspected make/closed, there are no directories containing Makefile.
So, I still placed the build changes under "make" like all other 
components currently have, and it will be skipped for non-OpenJDK builds.
If I move the build changes to make/closed, will it be built 
automatically if I start the build at the top level? I doubt it will be 
done with the current make mechanism?
Valerie

On 02/07/12 16:51, David Holmes wrote:
> Valerie,
>
> I also have a concern here that if the source files for 
> com/oracle/security/ucrupto are in src/closed then why weren't the 
> bulk of the build changes in make/closed?
>
> David
>
> On 8/02/2012 9:41 AM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't aware that explicit approval is needed for backporting a JDK8
>> fix into JDK7 update.
>> I'll check w/ my co-workers and manager and see what I should do in this
>> scenario.
>> Thanks,
>> Valerie
>>
>> On 02/07/12 13:47, Omair Majid wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2012 03:18 PM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
>>>> This was discussed in JDK8 and then later backported to 7u.
>>>> The majority of the code is under the closed tree, so the changes are
>>>> reviewed internally.
>>> Ah, I was not aware of that. From what I have seen of other patches, 
>>> the
>>> external changes are still reviewed externally:
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2011-December/004805.html 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Besides, I am concerned that Rule 4 of the JDK 7 Updates: Ground Rules
>>> [1] was violated and that this changeset was not approved publicly on
>>> the jdk7u-dev mailing list (nor was a url to the place where the patch
>>> was reviewed provided).
>>>
>>> Perhaps the rules need to be adjusted to clarify how cases like this
>>> should be handled?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Omair
>>>
>>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7u/groundrules.html
>>