Request for approval: 8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface - fixes and improvements for network interface listing

[Langer, Christoph]

Hi,

forwarding Chris' review for the downported change.

Can I please get the approval now?

Thanks
Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 24. August 2016 12:04
> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> Subject: Re: Request for approval: 8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface - fixes
> and improvements for network interface listing
> 
> On 24/08/16 10:23, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > so, does it mean you'll give a review for the backport change now?
> 
> Yes. Consider it reviewed.
> 
> -Chris.
> 
> > Best regards
> > Christoph
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Langer, Christoph
> >> Sent: Montag, 22. August 2016 16:38
> >> To: 'Chris Hegarty' <chris.hegarty at oracle.com>
> >> Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net; Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> >> Subject: RE: Request for approval: 8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface -
> fixes
> >> and improvements for network interface listing
> >>
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>
> >> yes, the change for 8160174 would make the code mostly identical to the
> >> current JDK9 version, except for some calls to NET_ or JNU_
> macros/functions
> >> wich are either not available in 8 or I didn't dare to touch.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Christoph
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com]
> >>> Sent: Montag, 22. August 2016 16:04
> >>> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> >>> Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net; Rob McKenna
> <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: Request for approval: 8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface -
> fixes
> >>> and improvements for network interface listing
> >>>
> >>> Hi Christoph,
> >>>
> >>> On 22/08/16 11:00, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand your concerns regarding too much change here which could
> >>> result in subtle differences that might not be wanted for a released
> version.
> >>>>
> >>>> The main motivation for me to integrate the change into JDK 8 is
> >>> mergeability. In our SAP JVM 8 we had the need to do several fixes for
> >>> problems on various of our supported platforms. And with the current
> coding
> >>> layout it is very hard to do fixes, especially for AIX/Linux as all the #ifdefs
> >> make
> >>> it a mess. So we already stepped to a version of code that merely matches
> >> the
> >>> JDK9 version.
> >>>
> >>> I understand, and can sympathize with this.
> >>>
> >>>> But I agree that with my proposal
> >>> (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8160174.8udev/) I'm
> probably
> >>> touching unnecessary places and make a review really hard.
> >>>
> >>> Well after further thought, if we are going to make changes here,
> >>> then maybe there is an argument for keeping the code consistent
> >>> with 9, at least we end up with a single body of code.
> >>>
> >>> 8160174 has been in JDK 9 for almost a month, and there have been
> >>> no reported issues.
> >>>
> >>> Is it the case that with your previous proposal that the 8u version
> >>> of the file is identical to that of the 9 version?
> >>>
> >>> -Chris.
> >>>
> >>>> What about this proposal for downporting the fix to Bug 8158519:
> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8158519.8udev/
> >>>>
> >>>> Here I really only split the enumIPv*Interfaces methods to a clean
> structure
> >>> and then make the necessary changes to eliminate getBroadcast() and
> >>> getSubnet() functions in order to determine that information correctly in
> >> place
> >>> before calling addif.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you give a review for that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks a lot
> >>>> Christoph
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hegarty at oracle.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 18. August 2016 17:49
> >>>>> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> >>>>> Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net; Rob McKenna
> >> <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Request for approval: 8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface -
> >>> fixes
> >>>>> and improvements for network interface listing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 16 Aug 2016, at 15:41, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Christoph,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the patch has changed from 9 you will need a separate review.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 	-Rob
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 16/08/16 10:09, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> can I get approval for backporting the following fix:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Original Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8160174
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jdk9 change:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/a8db670c7d12
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-
> >> dev/2016-
> >>>>> July/010100.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I had to modify the jdk9 patch after unshuffling to get it to apply to
> >> 8udev.
> >>>>> This is the new webrev:
> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8160174.8udev/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wow, there are quite a lot of changes in this. I do remember reviewing
> >> this
> >>> for
> >>>>> 9 ( it
> >>>>> took a long time ).  I do have a concern that this change may cause some
> >>> subtle
> >>>>> behavioural differences, since the underlying systems calls may be
> >> different.
> >>>>> This
> >>>>> may be acceptable for a major release, but not so for an update release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there a strong need for this to be backported?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Chris.