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

Fri Aug 26 07:53:42 UTC 2016

Sure, we can push this change.

Regards,
Sean.

On 26 August 2016 07:24:25 GMT+01:00, "Langer, Christoph" <christoph.langer at sap.com> wrote:
>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.

--
Regards,
Sean.

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.