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

[David Holmes]

On 8/02/2012 11:09 AM, Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng wrote:
> 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?

You may well be right. I thought make/closed was more utilized in JDK 
builds but as you say there are no Makefiles there at present.

I'm looking at changing things so that make/closed is more extensively - 
particularly for our embedded builds. It may be that then these crypto 
changes can also get moved across.

Thanks,
David

> 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
>>>
>