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

Fri Aug 26 06:24:25 UTC 2016

Thanks Sean and David.

Can either of you push it for me as I'm no jdk8 committer?

Best regards
Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Coffey [mailto:sean.coffey at oracle.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 19:10
> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; jdk8u-
> dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Request for approval: 8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface - fixes
> and improvements for network interface listing
> 
> 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.