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

[Sean Coffey]

Approved for jdk8u-dev. David Buck ran your patch through our build & 
test system (JPRT). No issues spotted.

regards
Sean.


On 24/08/2016 11:51, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> 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.