Request for approval: 8160174: java.net.NetworkInterface - fixes and improvements for network interface listing
david buck
david.buck at oracle.com
Fri Aug 26 11:35:51 UTC 2016
done
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/rev/3dc438e0c8e1
Cheers,
-Buck
On 2016/08/26 16:53, Seán Coffey wrote:
> 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
> <http://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
> <http://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 <http://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 <http://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
> <http://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.
More information about the jdk8u-dev
mailing list