From rahul.v.raghavan at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 09:33:55 2017
From: rahul.v.raghavan at oracle.com (Rahul Raghavan)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 02:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175345: possible null
 pointer dereference defects
Message-ID: <7dde80da-dfd4-4b18-9a6a-8cc75808a711@default>

Hi,

With reference to below email thread re-initiating the approval request for back port of 8175345.

<jbs> : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175345
The changes done in jdk9 were reviewed in open and pushed.
  <jdk9 RFR thread> : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-March/025798.html
  <jdk9 changeset> : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/55e3f1f3d0a7


Unfortunately earlier webrev submitted for 8175345 backport was wrong and patch from 9 does not apply cleanly.
Later submitted revised webrev for jdk8u backport through below email thread and now got approval for the same.
  <jdk8u - webrev.01> : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8177429/webrev.01/
  < jdk8u RFR thread> : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-May/026311.html

So request approval for pushing the backport changes.

Thanks,
Rahul


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Hartmann
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 3:50 PM
> To: Rahul Raghavan; hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net; Vladimir Kozlov; Zoltan Majo; Robert Mckenna
> Subject: Re: [8u Backport] RFR: 8175345: possible null pointer dereference defects
> 
> Hi Rahul,
> 
> On 23.05.2017 11:58, Rahul Raghavan wrote:
> > Request for review approval for the following revised webrev for jdk8u.
> > <webrev.01> : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8177429/webrev.01/
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> Best regards,
> Tobias
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahul Raghavan
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 3:28 PM
> To: hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net; Vladimir Kozlov; Tobias Hartmann; Zoltan Majo; Robert Mckenna
> Subject: [8u Backport] RFR: 8175345: possible null pointer dereference defects
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am sorry that the first webrev submitted for 8175345 backport was wrong.
> Missed to note that difference in code base and to run jprt test before submitting for review, approval.
> Patch from 9 does not apply cleanly.
> Apologies for the confusion.
> 
> 
> Request for review approval for the following revised webrev for jdk8u.
> <webrev.01> : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8177429/webrev.01/
> 
> 
> <jbs> : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175345
> The changes done in jdk9 were reviewed in open and pushed.
>   <jdk9 RFR thread> : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-March/025798.html
>   <jdk9 changeset> : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/55e3f1f3d0a7
> 
> 
> Above <webrev.01> for jdk8u is same as jdk9 changes,
>    except following changes in 'src/share/vm/opto/ifnode.cpp',
>    due the difference in 'ProjNode::is_uncommon_trap_proj()' return type
>    (returns 'bool' in jdk8u and 'CallStaticJavaNode*' in jdk9)
> So change done for jdk9 was -
>         -  if (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate) != NULL)
>         -   prev_dom = idom;
>         +  if ((unc_proj != NULL) && (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate) != NULL)) {
>         +    prev_dom = idom;
>         +  }
> And now the proposed change for jdk8u in above webrev.01 is -
>         -  if (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate))
>         -   prev_dom = idom;
>         +  if ((unc_proj != NULL) && (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate))) {
>         +    prev_dom = idom;
>         +  }
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rahul
> 
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rahul Raghavan > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:14 AM
> > To: Robert Mckenna > > Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: RE: [8u Backport] RFR: 8175345: possible null pointer dereference defects
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rob McKenna > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:38 PM
> > >
> > > ...also please add a suitable noreg label to the main bug.
> >
> > Done, thank you.
> > -Rahul
> >
> > >
> > >     -Rob
> > >
> > > On 16/05/17 05:24, Rob McKenna wrote:
> > > > Updated subject line to reflect the correct bug id.
> > > >
> > > > Rahul, for future requests, please only refer to the main bug id.
> > > >
> > > > Approved
> > > >
> > > >     -Rob
> > > >
> > > > On 15/05/17 11:50, Rahul Raghavan wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Request for approval -
> > > > > <webrev.01> - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8175345/webrev.01/
> > > > >
> > > > > <jbs> - '49 Null pointer dereference defect groups in 21 files' -
> > > > >     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177429
> > > > > Backport of -
> > > > >     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175345
> > > > >
> > > > > With 8175345, the changes done in jdk9 were reviewed in open and committed.
> > > > > <RFR thread> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-March/025798.html
> > > > > <changeset> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/55e3f1f3d0a7
> > > > >
> > > > > This backport fix is same as in jdk9.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Rahul

From aleksej.efimov at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 11:33:16 2017
From: aleksej.efimov at oracle.com (Aleks Efimov)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 12:33:16 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8180582: After updating to Java8u131, 
 the bind to rmiregistry is rejected by registryFilter even though
 registryFilter is set
Message-ID: <46c01021-42bb-5ba5-80d4-dfd298445906@oracle.com>

Hi,

Can I, please, ask for an approval for backporting JDK-8180582 fix to JDK8u-dev.
JDK9 source and test changes were applied cleanly after reshuffling.

JBS:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180582

JDK9 Changeset:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/1f820f4aff3e

JDK9 Review Thread:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047884.html


With Best Regards,
Aleksei


From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 13:03:39 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:03:39 +0100
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8166507:
 ConcurrentSkipListSet.clear() can leave the Set in an invalid state
In-Reply-To: <CA+kOe08-KLrs30pJhSF=qNQ37tS3irHayJSA_YTZ=y6cZtSgCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+kOe08-KLrs30pJhSF=qNQ37tS3irHayJSA_YTZ=y6cZtSgCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170601130339.GA3694@vimes>

Approved.

    -Rob

On 31/05/17 12:20, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk8/ConcurrentSkipListMap-clear/
> 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8166507
> 
> Patch from 9 applies cleanly.

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 13:05:04 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Robert Mckenna)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:05:04 +0100
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175345: possible null
 pointer dereference defects
In-Reply-To: <7dde80da-dfd4-4b18-9a6a-8cc75808a711@default>
References: <7dde80da-dfd4-4b18-9a6a-8cc75808a711@default>
Message-ID: <20170601130504.GB3694@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 01/06/17 02:33, Rahul Raghavan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> With reference to below email thread re-initiating the approval request for back port of 8175345.
> 
> <jbs> : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175345
> The changes done in jdk9 were reviewed in open and pushed.
>   <jdk9 RFR thread> : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-March/025798.html
>   <jdk9 changeset> : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/55e3f1f3d0a7
> 
> 
> Unfortunately earlier webrev submitted for 8175345 backport was wrong and patch from 9 does not apply cleanly.
> Later submitted revised webrev for jdk8u backport through below email thread and now got approval for the same.
>   <jdk8u - webrev.01> : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8177429/webrev.01/
>   < jdk8u RFR thread> : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-May/026311.html
> 
> So request approval for pushing the backport changes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rahul
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tobias Hartmann
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 3:50 PM
> > To: Rahul Raghavan; hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net; Vladimir Kozlov; Zoltan Majo; Robert Mckenna
> > Subject: Re: [8u Backport] RFR: 8175345: possible null pointer dereference defects
> > 
> > Hi Rahul,
> > 
> > On 23.05.2017 11:58, Rahul Raghavan wrote:
> > > Request for review approval for the following revised webrev for jdk8u.
> > > <webrev.01> : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8177429/webrev.01/
> > 
> > Looks good.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Tobias
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rahul Raghavan
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 3:28 PM
> > To: hotspot-compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net; Vladimir Kozlov; Tobias Hartmann; Zoltan Majo; Robert Mckenna
> > Subject: [8u Backport] RFR: 8175345: possible null pointer dereference defects
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am sorry that the first webrev submitted for 8175345 backport was wrong.
> > Missed to note that difference in code base and to run jprt test before submitting for review, approval.
> > Patch from 9 does not apply cleanly.
> > Apologies for the confusion.
> > 
> > 
> > Request for review approval for the following revised webrev for jdk8u.
> > <webrev.01> : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8177429/webrev.01/
> > 
> > 
> > <jbs> : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175345
> > The changes done in jdk9 were reviewed in open and pushed.
> >   <jdk9 RFR thread> : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-March/025798.html
> >   <jdk9 changeset> : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/55e3f1f3d0a7
> > 
> > 
> > Above <webrev.01> for jdk8u is same as jdk9 changes,
> >    except following changes in 'src/share/vm/opto/ifnode.cpp',
> >    due the difference in 'ProjNode::is_uncommon_trap_proj()' return type
> >    (returns 'bool' in jdk8u and 'CallStaticJavaNode*' in jdk9)
> > So change done for jdk9 was -
> >         -  if (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate) != NULL)
> >         -   prev_dom = idom;
> >         +  if ((unc_proj != NULL) && (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate) != NULL)) {
> >         +    prev_dom = idom;
> >         +  }
> > And now the proposed change for jdk8u in above webrev.01 is -
> >         -  if (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate))
> >         -   prev_dom = idom;
> >         +  if ((unc_proj != NULL) && (unc_proj->is_uncommon_trap_proj(Deoptimization::Reason_predicate))) {
> >         +    prev_dom = idom;
> >         +  }
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rahul
> > 
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rahul Raghavan > > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:14 AM
> > > To: Robert Mckenna > > Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > > Subject: RE: [8u Backport] RFR: 8175345: possible null pointer dereference defects
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Rob McKenna > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:38 PM
> > > >
> > > > ...also please add a suitable noreg label to the main bug.
> > >
> > > Done, thank you.
> > > -Rahul
> > >
> > > >
> > > >     -Rob
> > > >
> > > > On 16/05/17 05:24, Rob McKenna wrote:
> > > > > Updated subject line to reflect the correct bug id.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rahul, for future requests, please only refer to the main bug id.
> > > > >
> > > > > Approved
> > > > >
> > > > >     -Rob
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15/05/17 11:50, Rahul Raghavan wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Request for approval -
> > > > > > <webrev.01> - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8175345/webrev.01/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <jbs> - '49 Null pointer dereference defect groups in 21 files' -
> > > > > >     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177429
> > > > > > Backport of -
> > > > > >     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175345
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With 8175345, the changes done in jdk9 were reviewed in open and committed.
> > > > > > <RFR thread> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2017-March/025798.html
> > > > > > <changeset> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/55e3f1f3d0a7
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This backport fix is same as in jdk9.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Rahul

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 13:06:38 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:06:38 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8180582: After updating to
 Java8u131, the bind to rmiregistry is rejected by registryFilter even though
 registryFilter is set
In-Reply-To: <46c01021-42bb-5ba5-80d4-dfd298445906@oracle.com>
References: <46c01021-42bb-5ba5-80d4-dfd298445906@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20170601130638.GC3694@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 01/06/17 12:33, Aleks Efimov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Can I, please, ask for an approval for backporting JDK-8180582 fix to JDK8u-dev.
> JDK9 source and test changes were applied cleanly after reshuffling.
> 
> JBS:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180582
> 
> JDK9 Changeset:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/1f820f4aff3e
> 
> JDK9 Review Thread:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047884.html
> 
> 
> With Best Regards,
> Aleksei
> 

From aleksej.efimov at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 13:07:40 2017
From: aleksej.efimov at oracle.com (Aleks Efimov)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:07:40 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8180582: After updating to
 Java8u131, the bind to rmiregistry is rejected by registryFilter even though
 registryFilter is set
In-Reply-To: <20170601130638.GC3694@vimes>
References: <46c01021-42bb-5ba5-80d4-dfd298445906@oracle.com>
 <20170601130638.GC3694@vimes>
Message-ID: <064c1c22-d433-618e-e2a8-4cbcdbcceb59@oracle.com>

Thank you, Rob!

-Aleksei

On 06/01/2017 02:06 PM, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Approved
>
>      -Rob
>
> On 01/06/17 12:33, Aleks Efimov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can I, please, ask for an approval for backporting JDK-8180582 fix to JDK8u-dev.
>> JDK9 source and test changes were applied cleanly after reshuffling.
>>
>> JBS:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180582
>>
>> JDK9 Changeset:
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/1f820f4aff3e
>>
>> JDK9 Review Thread:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047884.html
>>
>>
>> With Best Regards,
>> Aleksei
>>


From gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com  Thu Jun  1 16:10:49 2017
From: gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Gustavo Romero)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:10:49 -0300
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175813: PPC64: "mbind:
 Invalid argument" when -XX:+UseNUMA is used
Message-ID: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hi,

Could the following backport of 8144019 be approved please?

It fixes the JVM NUMA detection on PPC64 when -XX:+UseNUMA is used.

I understand that it's correct to do such a request even if at the moment the
change is not in 9 as it is already in 10, accordingly to [1].

bug          : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175813
webrev       : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html

Thank you.

Regards,
Gustavo

[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2017-March/006512.html


From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 17:04:52 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:04:52 +0100
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175813: PPC64:
 "mbind: Invalid argument" when -XX:+UseNUMA is used
In-Reply-To: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20170601170452.GD3694@vimes>

Does this patch apply cleanly?

    -Rob

On 01/06/17 01:10, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Could the following backport of 8144019 be approved please?
> 
> It fixes the JVM NUMA detection on PPC64 when -XX:+UseNUMA is used.
> 
> I understand that it's correct to do such a request even if at the moment the
> change is not in 9 as it is already in 10, accordingly to [1].
> 
> bug          : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175813
> webrev       : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
> review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Gustavo
> 
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2017-March/006512.html
> 

From gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com  Thu Jun  1 17:22:40 2017
From: gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Gustavo Romero)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:22:40 -0300
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175813: PPC64: "mbind:
 Invalid argument" when -XX:+UseNUMA is used
In-Reply-To: <20170601170452.GD3694@vimes>
References: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170601170452.GD3694@vimes>
Message-ID: <59304D60.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hi Rob,

On 01-06-2017 14:04, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Does this patch apply cleanly?

Yes, the patch I'm providing here [1] applies cleanly.

It differs from the patch in 10 by an indentation issue and hence I requested a
new review for [1] in the hotspot-dev [2]. Hence [1] is now reviewed.

Please, let me know if any additional step is missing in the approval process.

Thank you.


Regards,
Gustavo

[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
[2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html

>     -Rob
> 
> On 01/06/17 01:10, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could the following backport of 8144019 be approved please?
>>
>> It fixes the JVM NUMA detection on PPC64 when -XX:+UseNUMA is used.
>>
>> I understand that it's correct to do such a request even if at the moment the
>> change is not in 9 as it is already in 10, accordingly to [1].
>>
>> bug          : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175813
>> webrev       : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
>> review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gustavo
>>
>> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2017-March/006512.html
>>
> 


From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Thu Jun  1 17:37:49 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:37:49 +0100
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175813: PPC64:
 "mbind: Invalid argument" when -XX:+UseNUMA is used
In-Reply-To: <59304D60.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170601170452.GD3694@vimes>
 <59304D60.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <20170601173749.GE3694@vimes>

Nope, you're good.

Approved

    -Rob

On 01/06/17 02:22, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On 01-06-2017 14:04, Rob McKenna wrote:
> > Does this patch apply cleanly?
> 
> Yes, the patch I'm providing here [1] applies cleanly.
> 
> It differs from the patch in 10 by an indentation issue and hence I requested a
> new review for [1] in the hotspot-dev [2]. Hence [1] is now reviewed.
> 
> Please, let me know if any additional step is missing in the approval process.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Gustavo
> 
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
> 
> >     -Rob
> > 
> > On 01/06/17 01:10, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Could the following backport of 8144019 be approved please?
> >>
> >> It fixes the JVM NUMA detection on PPC64 when -XX:+UseNUMA is used.
> >>
> >> I understand that it's correct to do such a request even if at the moment the
> >> change is not in 9 as it is already in 10, accordingly to [1].
> >>
> >> bug          : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175813
> >> webrev       : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
> >> review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Gustavo
> >>
> >> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2017-March/006512.html
> >>
> > 
> 

From gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com  Thu Jun  1 18:25:52 2017
From: gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Gustavo Romero)
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:25:52 -0300
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175813: PPC64: "mbind:
 Invalid argument" when -XX:+UseNUMA is used
In-Reply-To: <20170601173749.GE3694@vimes>
References: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170601170452.GD3694@vimes> <59304D60.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170601173749.GE3694@vimes>
Message-ID: <59305C30.8080907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks, Rob.

I need a sponsor for that change. Could someone sponsor it please?


Regards,
Gustavo

On 01-06-2017 14:37, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Nope, you're good.
> 
> Approved
> 
>     -Rob
> 
> On 01/06/17 02:22, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 01-06-2017 14:04, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>> Does this patch apply cleanly?
>>
>> Yes, the patch I'm providing here [1] applies cleanly.
>>
>> It differs from the patch in 10 by an indentation issue and hence I requested a
>> new review for [1] in the hotspot-dev [2]. Hence [1] is now reviewed.
>>
>> Please, let me know if any additional step is missing in the approval process.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gustavo
>>
>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
>>
>>>     -Rob
>>>
>>> On 01/06/17 01:10, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Could the following backport of 8144019 be approved please?
>>>>
>>>> It fixes the JVM NUMA detection on PPC64 when -XX:+UseNUMA is used.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that it's correct to do such a request even if at the moment the
>>>> change is not in 9 as it is already in 10, accordingly to [1].
>>>>
>>>> bug          : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175813
>>>> webrev       : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
>>>> review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Gustavo
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2017-March/006512.html
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


From david.holmes at oracle.com  Fri Jun  2 00:26:23 2017
From: david.holmes at oracle.com (David Holmes)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:26:23 +1000
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175813: PPC64: "mbind:
 Invalid argument" when -XX:+UseNUMA is used
In-Reply-To: <59305C30.8080907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170601170452.GD3694@vimes> <59304D60.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170601173749.GE3694@vimes> <59305C30.8080907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <1814ebe1-df86-50cb-28bf-045bdf84bd58@oracle.com>

I'll push it for you Gustavo.

Thanks,
David

On 2/06/2017 4:25 AM, Gustavo Romero wrote:
> Thanks, Rob.
> 
> I need a sponsor for that change. Could someone sponsor it please?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Gustavo
> 
> On 01-06-2017 14:37, Rob McKenna wrote:
>> Nope, you're good.
>>
>> Approved
>>
>>      -Rob
>>
>> On 01/06/17 02:22, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On 01-06-2017 14:04, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>> Does this patch apply cleanly?
>>>
>>> Yes, the patch I'm providing here [1] applies cleanly.
>>>
>>> It differs from the patch in 10 by an indentation issue and hence I requested a
>>> new review for [1] in the hotspot-dev [2]. Hence [1] is now reviewed.
>>>
>>> Please, let me know if any additional step is missing in the approval process.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gustavo
>>>
>>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
>>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
>>>
>>>>      -Rob
>>>>
>>>> On 01/06/17 01:10, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could the following backport of 8144019 be approved please?
>>>>>
>>>>> It fixes the JVM NUMA detection on PPC64 when -XX:+UseNUMA is used.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that it's correct to do such a request even if at the moment the
>>>>> change is not in 9 as it is already in 10, accordingly to [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> bug          : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175813
>>>>> webrev       : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
>>>>> review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Gustavo
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2017-March/006512.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

From gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com  Fri Jun  2 13:27:28 2017
From: gromero at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Gustavo Romero)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:27:28 -0300
Subject: [8u] Request for Approval for backport of 8175813: PPC64: "mbind:
 Invalid argument" when -XX:+UseNUMA is used
In-Reply-To: <1814ebe1-df86-50cb-28bf-045bdf84bd58@oracle.com>
References: <59303C89.8070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170601170452.GD3694@vimes> <59304D60.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170601173749.GE3694@vimes> <59305C30.8080907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1814ebe1-df86-50cb-28bf-045bdf84bd58@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <593167C0.6070604@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hi David,

On 01-06-2017 21:26, David Holmes wrote:
> I'll push it for you Gustavo.

Thank you very much.

Regards,
Gustavo


> Thanks,
> David
> 
> On 2/06/2017 4:25 AM, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>> Thanks, Rob.
>>
>> I need a sponsor for that change. Could someone sponsor it please?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gustavo
>>
>> On 01-06-2017 14:37, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>> Nope, you're good.
>>>
>>> Approved
>>>
>>>      -Rob
>>>
>>> On 01/06/17 02:22, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>> On 01-06-2017 14:04, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>>> Does this patch apply cleanly?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the patch I'm providing here [1] applies cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> It differs from the patch in 10 by an indentation issue and hence I requested a
>>>> new review for [1] in the hotspot-dev [2]. Hence [1] is now reviewed.
>>>>
>>>> Please, let me know if any additional step is missing in the approval process.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Gustavo
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
>>>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
>>>>
>>>>>      -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/06/17 01:10, Gustavo Romero wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could the following backport of 8144019 be approved please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It fixes the JVM NUMA detection on PPC64 when -XX:+UseNUMA is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that it's correct to do such a request even if at the moment the
>>>>>> change is not in 9 as it is already in 10, accordingly to [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bug          : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175813
>>>>>> webrev       : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gromero/8175813/backport/
>>>>>> review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-May/027022.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Gustavo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2017-March/006512.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


From anton.litvinov at oracle.com  Mon Jun  5 13:45:06 2017
From: anton.litvinov at oracle.com (Anton Litvinov)
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:45:06 +0300
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for CR 8181192: [macos]
 javafx.print.PrinterJob.showPrintDialog() hangs on macOS
Message-ID: <5d0bb7de-2e4c-b5d5-242c-87a0d46a1c25@oracle.com>

Hello,

I would like to request for approval to push a straight backport of the 
fix from JDK 9 to JDK 8. The patch from JDK 9 applies to JDK 8 after 
correction of file paths.

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181192
JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/client/jdk/rev/e4a4f89bbca3
JDK 9 review thread:
     Approval 1 - 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2017-June/008383.html
     Approval 2 - 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2017-June/008379.html
Reviewers: prr, serb

Thank you,
Anton

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Tue Jun  6 13:36:44 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:36:44 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for CR 8181192: [macos]
 javafx.print.PrinterJob.showPrintDialog() hangs on macOS
In-Reply-To: <5d0bb7de-2e4c-b5d5-242c-87a0d46a1c25@oracle.com>
References: <5d0bb7de-2e4c-b5d5-242c-87a0d46a1c25@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20170606133644.GD4512@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 05/06/17 04:45, Anton Litvinov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to request for approval to push a straight backport of the fix
> from JDK 9 to JDK 8. The patch from JDK 9 applies to JDK 8 after correction
> of file paths.
> 
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181192
> JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/client/jdk/rev/e4a4f89bbca3
> JDK 9 review thread:
>     Approval 1 -
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2017-June/008383.html
>     Approval 2 -
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2017-June/008379.html
> Reviewers: prr, serb
> 
> Thank you,
> Anton

From shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com  Tue Jun  6 17:28:24 2017
From: shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com (Shafi Ahmad)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8180660: missing LNT entry for finally block
Message-ID: <6dabb89d-ee1f-408f-9bae-fef7ecfea5cb@default>

Hi,

May I get the approval of backport of ' JDK-8180660: missing LNT entry for finally block' to jdk8u.

Jdk10 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180660
Jdk10 review thread: Public review thread is not available. 
Jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/2017-June/010970.html
Wbrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shshahma/8180660/webrev.00/

Regards,
Shafi

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Tue Jun  6 18:41:30 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 19:41:30 +0100
Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8180660: missing LNT entry for finally block
In-Reply-To: <6dabb89d-ee1f-408f-9bae-fef7ecfea5cb@default>
References: <6dabb89d-ee1f-408f-9bae-fef7ecfea5cb@default>
Message-ID: <20170606184130.GN4512@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 06/06/17 10:28, Shafi Ahmad wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> May I get the approval of backport of ' JDK-8180660: missing LNT entry for finally block' to jdk8u.
> 
> Jdk10 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180660
> Jdk10 review thread: Public review thread is not available. 
> Jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/2017-June/010970.html
> Wbrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shshahma/8180660/webrev.00/
> 
> Regards,
> Shafi

From sean.coffey at oracle.com  Wed Jun  7 11:22:27 2017
From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:22:27 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval : 8181205:JRE fails to load/register
 security providers when started from UNC pathname
Message-ID: <2baf16dd-8e82-0b9d-f302-dc715dd5e1ba@oracle.com>

Looking to push this fix to jdk8u-dev. This is not applicable to JDK 9 
given that the extension load mechanism has been removed.

review thread : 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-June/015925.html
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8181205/webrev/
JBS record : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181205

-- 
Regards,
Sean.


From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Wed Jun  7 12:34:10 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:34:10 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval : 8181205:JRE fails to
 load/register security providers when started from UNC pathname
In-Reply-To: <2baf16dd-8e82-0b9d-f302-dc715dd5e1ba@oracle.com>
References: <2baf16dd-8e82-0b9d-f302-dc715dd5e1ba@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20170607123410.GB3376@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 07/06/17 12:22, Se?n Coffey wrote:
> Looking to push this fix to jdk8u-dev. This is not applicable to JDK 9 given
> that the extension load mechanism has been removed.
> 
> review thread :
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-June/015925.html
> webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8181205/webrev/
> JBS record : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181205
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Sean.
> 

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Wed Jun  7 16:42:10 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:42:10 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8173654: Regression since 8u60:
 System.getenv doesn't return env var set in JNI code
Message-ID: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>

Hi folks,

Looking for approval (subject to the 10 push being complete) of the
following:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173654
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8173654/8/
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-June/019356.html

    -Rob


From sean.coffey at oracle.com  Wed Jun  7 16:55:41 2017
From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:55:41 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8173654: Regression since 8u60:
 System.getenv doesn't return env var set in JNI code
In-Reply-To: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>
References: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>
Message-ID: <322c1661-92b6-fa74-8f02-6d72a315eceb@oracle.com>

Approved for jdk8u-dev but subject to JDK 10 fix being pushed. I'll open 
a 9-pool record also.

Regards,
Sean.

On 07/06/17 17:42, Rob McKenna wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Looking for approval (subject to the 10 push being complete) of the
> following:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173654
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8173654/8/
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-June/019356.html
>
>      -Rob
>


From martinrb at google.com  Wed Jun  7 16:59:53 2017
From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:59:53 -0700
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8173654: Regression since 8u60:
 System.getenv doesn't return env var set in JNI code
In-Reply-To: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>
References: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>
Message-ID: <CA+kOe0-SZOAHBerZf2mNdSYjjwQbmF5UDNpSc_MFV1C5-bQCjw@mail.gmail.com>

I'm confused. How does this change affect environment variables?  Are you
planning to rebuild jdk8 with different custom code so that the first call
to getenv is later?

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Looking for approval (subject to the 10 push being complete) of the
> following:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173654
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8173654/8/
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-June/019356.html
>
>     -Rob
>
>

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Wed Jun  7 17:10:47 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:47 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8173654: Regression since 8u60:
 System.getenv doesn't return env var set in JNI code
In-Reply-To: <CA+kOe0-SZOAHBerZf2mNdSYjjwQbmF5UDNpSc_MFV1C5-bQCjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>
 <CA+kOe0-SZOAHBerZf2mNdSYjjwQbmF5UDNpSc_MFV1C5-bQCjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170607171047.GD3376@vimes>

Code was added to the JDK which had the effect of calling getenv earlier
than it had been previously. This change is intended to provide a way to
rectify that situation without otherwise affecting openjdk.

    -Rob

On 07/06/17 09:59, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I'm confused. How does this change affect environment variables?  Are you
> planning to rebuild jdk8 with different custom code so that the first call
> to getenv is later?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Looking for approval (subject to the 10 push being complete) of the
> > following:
> >
> > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173654
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8173654/8/
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-June/019356.html
> >
> >     -Rob
> >
> >

From martinrb at google.com  Wed Jun  7 17:17:25 2017
From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:17:25 -0700
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8173654: Regression since 8u60:
 System.getenv doesn't return env var set in JNI code
In-Reply-To: <20170607171047.GD3376@vimes>
References: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>
 <CA+kOe0-SZOAHBerZf2mNdSYjjwQbmF5UDNpSc_MFV1C5-bQCjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170607171047.GD3376@vimes>
Message-ID: <CA+kOe0-ou6tG5Kgt8s2a+-jEtUgqKCkHAAF4D2JoQbq-yyAY7w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks.

So I guess the "regression" was observed only in Oracle JDK, not in stock
openjdk?

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com> wrote:

> Code was added to the JDK which had the effect of calling getenv earlier
> than it had been previously. This change is intended to provide a way to
> rectify that situation without otherwise affecting openjdk.
>
>     -Rob
>
> On 07/06/17 09:59, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> > I'm confused. How does this change affect environment variables?  Are you
> > planning to rebuild jdk8 with different custom code so that the first
> call
> > to getenv is later?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Looking for approval (subject to the 10 push being complete) of the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173654
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8173654/8/
> > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-June/019356.html
> > >
> > >     -Rob
> > >
> > >
>

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Wed Jun  7 17:43:56 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:43:56 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8173654: Regression since 8u60:
 System.getenv doesn't return env var set in JNI code
In-Reply-To: <CA+kOe0-ou6tG5Kgt8s2a+-jEtUgqKCkHAAF4D2JoQbq-yyAY7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170607164210.GC3376@vimes>
 <CA+kOe0-SZOAHBerZf2mNdSYjjwQbmF5UDNpSc_MFV1C5-bQCjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170607171047.GD3376@vimes>
 <CA+kOe0-ou6tG5Kgt8s2a+-jEtUgqKCkHAAF4D2JoQbq-yyAY7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20170607174356.GE3376@vimes>

Yep.

    -Rob

On 07/06/17 10:17, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Thanks.
> 
> So I guess the "regression" was observed only in Oracle JDK, not in stock
> openjdk?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > Code was added to the JDK which had the effect of calling getenv earlier
> > than it had been previously. This change is intended to provide a way to
> > rectify that situation without otherwise affecting openjdk.
> >
> >     -Rob
> >
> > On 07/06/17 09:59, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> > > I'm confused. How does this change affect environment variables?  Are you
> > > planning to rebuild jdk8 with different custom code so that the first
> > call
> > > to getenv is later?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > Looking for approval (subject to the 10 push being complete) of the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173654
> > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8173654/8/
> > > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2017-June/019356.html
> > > >
> > > >     -Rob
> > > >
> > > >
> >

From martijnverburg at gmail.com  Thu Jun  8 08:12:26 2017
From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:12:26 +0100
Subject: Version strings and update build numbers (determining when an
 update release goes GA)
In-Reply-To: <CAP7YuASk=J2T0J29UyE-2Gm0jxsBRFp9_B=JSdsUxiOBDgnHAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP7YuARsLCVrttezgzX8H-Ht09UTHZQyZcKHbFED37oK+grYhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <320ce161-8489-c585-78f8-58ca33dd025f@oracle.com>
 <CAP7YuASk=J2T0J29UyE-2Gm0jxsBRFp9_B=JSdsUxiOBDgnHAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAP7YuARaUeSJOzJWLA2zpsZ9aq17QjUDhK15bs0nsbMpRCuDjw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Happy to raise this as an issue on the OpenJDK bug tracker.  Do I need to
submit this through the old bugs.java.com?

Cheers,
Martijn

On 24 May 2017 at 16:06, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>
> An enhancement which adds GA tags for build systems like ours to pick up
> would be welcome.  I'm not an author so I'm not sure I can raise this issue
> in the OpenJDK JIRA?
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 15:35, Se?n Coffey <sean.coffey at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Martijn,
>>
>> You raise a good point around how one can easily identify releases that
>> have shipped. From an Oracle JDK perspective, the release notes should
>> always state the final build number of the 'shipped' release. For now,
>> that's probably the safest way to match a repo tag to a shipped JDK version.
>>
>> Perhaps a JBS enhancement request can be logged to track improvements in
>> this area. Would it make sense to add a new label to identify the final
>> 'shipped' release ? e.g. jdk8u131-b11-GA
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sean.
>>
>> On 23/05/17 15:19, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The Adopt OpenJDK community has created an OpenJDK Build farm
>>> <https://www.adoptopenjdk.net> for as many platforms as possible in
>>> order
>>> to assist with early testing of things like backported patches in jdk8u.
>>>
>>> We have a question on update and build numbers currently used in tags.
>>>
>>> At the moment we are picking up the version string from the tag
>>> 1.8.0u152-b04, but we're a bit hesitant at making an binary release of
>>> that
>>> particular tag as 1.8.0u152 isn't 'officially' released yet.
>>>
>>> Is there a way to automatically tell when the update version is 'done'?
>>> For example update 131 was released as jdk8u131-b11....
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>
>>
>

From sean.coffey at oracle.com  Thu Jun  8 08:41:10 2017
From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:41:10 +0100
Subject: Version strings and update build numbers (determining when an
 update release goes GA)
In-Reply-To: <CAP7YuARaUeSJOzJWLA2zpsZ9aq17QjUDhK15bs0nsbMpRCuDjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP7YuARsLCVrttezgzX8H-Ht09UTHZQyZcKHbFED37oK+grYhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <320ce161-8489-c585-78f8-58ca33dd025f@oracle.com>
 <CAP7YuASk=J2T0J29UyE-2Gm0jxsBRFp9_B=JSdsUxiOBDgnHAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP7YuARaUeSJOzJWLA2zpsZ9aq17QjUDhK15bs0nsbMpRCuDjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <421df891-f4e1-60e3-0e2d-10fd7420d102@oracle.com>

Martijn,

we're tracking this via : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180946

Given that the tags are added by our release team, I've raised the 
matter with them and am awaiting feedback.

regards,
Sean.

On 08/06/2017 09:12, Martijn Verburg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Happy to raise this as an issue on the OpenJDK bug tracker.  Do I need 
> to submit this through the old bugs.java.com <http://bugs.java.com>?
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 16:06, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com 
> <mailto:martijnverburg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Sean,
>
>     An enhancement which adds GA tags for build systems like ours to
>     pick up would be welcome.  I'm not an author so I'm not sure I can
>     raise this issue in the OpenJDK JIRA?
>
>     Cheers,
>     Martijn
>
>     On 24 May 2017 at 15:35, Se?n Coffey <sean.coffey at oracle.com
>     <mailto:sean.coffey at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>         Martijn,
>
>         You raise a good point around how one can easily identify
>         releases that have shipped. From an Oracle JDK perspective,
>         the release notes should always state the final build number
>         of the 'shipped' release. For now, that's probably the safest
>         way to match a repo tag to a shipped JDK version.
>
>         Perhaps a JBS enhancement request can be logged to track
>         improvements in this area. Would it make sense to add a new
>         label to identify the final 'shipped' release ? e.g.
>         jdk8u131-b11-GA
>
>         Regards,
>         Sean.
>
>         On 23/05/17 15:19, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>
>             Hi all,
>
>             The Adopt OpenJDK community has created an OpenJDK Build farm
>             <https://www.adoptopenjdk.net> for as many platforms as
>             possible in order
>             to assist with early testing of things like backported
>             patches in jdk8u.
>
>             We have a question on update and build numbers currently
>             used in tags.
>
>             At the moment we are picking up the version string from
>             the tag
>             1.8.0u152-b04, but we're a bit hesitant at making an
>             binary release of that
>             particular tag as 1.8.0u152 isn't 'officially' released yet.
>
>             Is there a way to automatically tell when the update
>             version is 'done'?
>             For example update 131 was released as jdk8u131-b11....
>
>             Cheers,
>             Martijn
>
>
>
>


From martijnverburg at gmail.com  Thu Jun  8 11:48:32 2017
From: martijnverburg at gmail.com (Martijn Verburg)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:48:32 +0100
Subject: Version strings and update build numbers (determining when an
 update release goes GA)
In-Reply-To: <421df891-f4e1-60e3-0e2d-10fd7420d102@oracle.com>
References: <CAP7YuARsLCVrttezgzX8H-Ht09UTHZQyZcKHbFED37oK+grYhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <320ce161-8489-c585-78f8-58ca33dd025f@oracle.com>
 <CAP7YuASk=J2T0J29UyE-2Gm0jxsBRFp9_B=JSdsUxiOBDgnHAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP7YuARaUeSJOzJWLA2zpsZ9aq17QjUDhK15bs0nsbMpRCuDjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <421df891-f4e1-60e3-0e2d-10fd7420d102@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <CAP7YuARNpVzPVumWYGpG5mEiE8xttc6=8hzG27cujmTWTSgr_g@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you!

Cheers,
Martijn

On 8 June 2017 at 09:41, Se?n Coffey <sean.coffey at oracle.com> wrote:

> Martijn,
>
> we're tracking this via : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180946
>
> Given that the tags are added by our release team, I've raised the matter
> with them and am awaiting feedback.
>
> regards,
> Sean.
> On 08/06/2017 09:12, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Happy to raise this as an issue on the OpenJDK bug tracker.  Do I need to
> submit this through the old bugs.java.com?
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 16:06, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> An enhancement which adds GA tags for build systems like ours to pick up
>> would be welcome.  I'm not an author so I'm not sure I can raise this issue
>> in the OpenJDK JIRA?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martijn
>>
>> On 24 May 2017 at 15:35, Se?n Coffey <sean.coffey at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Martijn,
>>>
>>> You raise a good point around how one can easily identify releases that
>>> have shipped. From an Oracle JDK perspective, the release notes should
>>> always state the final build number of the 'shipped' release. For now,
>>> that's probably the safest way to match a repo tag to a shipped JDK version.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a JBS enhancement request can be logged to track improvements in
>>> this area. Would it make sense to add a new label to identify the final
>>> 'shipped' release ? e.g. jdk8u131-b11-GA
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sean.
>>>
>>> On 23/05/17 15:19, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> The Adopt OpenJDK community has created an OpenJDK Build farm
>>>> <https://www.adoptopenjdk.net> for as many platforms as possible in
>>>> order
>>>> to assist with early testing of things like backported patches in jdk8u.
>>>>
>>>> We have a question on update and build numbers currently used in tags.
>>>>
>>>> At the moment we are picking up the version string from the tag
>>>> 1.8.0u152-b04, but we're a bit hesitant at making an binary release of
>>>> that
>>>> particular tag as 1.8.0u152 isn't 'officially' released yet.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to automatically tell when the update version is 'done'?
>>>> For example update 131 was released as jdk8u131-b11....
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martijn
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

From aleksej.efimov at oracle.com  Fri Jun  9 14:10:07 2017
From: aleksej.efimov at oracle.com (Aleks Efimov)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:10:07 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] RFR (JAXWS): 8172297: In java 8, the marshalling with JAX-WS
 does not escape carriage return
Message-ID: <1e31001a-54ca-afb5-562b-c41622f00254@oracle.com>

Hello,

Please, help to review the fix that helps JAXWS marshaller to properly 
escape new-line and carriage return symbols in webservice string parameters:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8172297/8/00

The source part of this fix is a partial backport of JAXWS-RI sync 
changes that addressed this issue in jaxb-ri project [1].
The sync changes are currently under review here:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047426.html

New regression test was added for this issue and it is passing with 
other JAXWS regression and JCK8 related tests.

With Best Regards,
Aleksei

[1] JAXB-RI related commits:
https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/8cbd5e0ec41c94d743c6ae993289e7a18d00aed4
https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/2358bcf5ec96e0285e305647887d65adad6ee892
https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/eeb5c5631a0a9311c52b23cc20344e6b342cd42a






From zgu at redhat.com  Mon Jun 12 11:28:12 2017
From: zgu at redhat.com (Zhengyu Gu)
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 07:28:12 -0400
Subject: RFA(XS) [8u backport] 8181055: PPC64: "mbind: Invalid argument" still
 seen after 8175813
Message-ID: <41274122-4283-3904-2d96-bf4c3158537f@redhat.com>

Hi,

I would like to request a backport of JDK-8181055 to JDK8u.

The backport patch is almost identical to JDK10, with only a minor conflict.

The code review thread: 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-June/027103.html


Thanks,

-Zhengyu

From sean.coffey at oracle.com  Tue Jun 13 07:38:45 2017
From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:38:45 +0100
Subject: [8u communication] 8u152 release plans
Message-ID: <365f9605-2e5b-dc5e-7074-6ae922702691@oracle.com>

The JDK 8 Updates master forest has been gathering fixes since GA of 
8u112 which was the last release from this Project. I'd like to propose 
that we move ahead and make another JDK release based on the contents of 
that forest. If we aim for an October release, then we can release in 
parallel with the Oracle CPU release which is 8u151. The PSU release 
version would be 8u152 and would contain all fixes from the 8u151 CPU 
release plus all fixes which have gathered in the jdk8u forest to date.

Proposed timeline :

* July 2016 [8u-dev forest begins collecting 8u152 fixes]
* End July 2017 [RampDown 2]
* Oct 2017 [GA]

I'll update the Project page with these proposed dates shortly. As 
always, these dates are preliminary and are subject to change.

regards,
Sean.


From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Tue Jun 13 12:10:22 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:10:22 +0100
Subject: RFA(XS) [8u backport] 8181055: PPC64: "mbind: Invalid argument"
 still seen after 8175813
In-Reply-To: <41274122-4283-3904-2d96-bf4c3158537f@redhat.com>
References: <41274122-4283-3904-2d96-bf4c3158537f@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20170613121022.GA3684@vimes>

Please add an appropriate noreg label to the bug.

Please follow the JDK8u Push Approval Request Template for future
requests:

http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/approval-template.html

Approved.

    -Rob

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181055
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zgu/8181055/8u/webrev.00/


On 12/06/17 07:28, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to request a backport of JDK-8181055 to JDK8u.
> 
> The backport patch is almost identical to JDK10, with only a minor conflict.
> 
> The code review thread:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-June/027103.html
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Zhengyu

From aleksej.efimov at oracle.com  Fri Jun 16 16:19:55 2017
From: aleksej.efimov at oracle.com (Aleks Efimov)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 17:19:55 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] RFR (JAXWS): 8172297: In java 8, the marshalling with
 JAX-WS does not escape carriage return
In-Reply-To: <BC4616D1-1837-4CD5-B245-8C1B9FBBF7A9@oracle.com>
References: <1e31001a-54ca-afb5-562b-c41622f00254@oracle.com>
 <BC4616D1-1837-4CD5-B245-8C1B9FBBF7A9@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <2ac8037d-b423-063b-1398-1308fc0224ba@oracle.com>

Thank you for the review Roman.

Can I, please, ask for JDK8u reviewer to go through these changes?

With Best Regards,
Aleksei

On 06/09/2017 04:20 PM, Roman Grigoriadi wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> Just a side note that escape handler can be overridden by "setting com.sun.xml.bind.characterEscapeHandler" or ?com.sun.xml.bind.marshaller.CharacterEscapeHandler" properties on Marshaller. This is respected by XMLStreamWriterOutput escape handling.
>
>
> Roman
>
>> On 9 Jun 2017, at 16:10, Aleks Efimov <aleksej.efimov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please, help to review the fix that helps JAXWS marshaller to properly escape new-line and carriage return symbols in webservice string parameters:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8172297/8/00
>>
>> The source part of this fix is a partial backport of JAXWS-RI sync changes that addressed this issue in jaxb-ri project [1].
>> The sync changes are currently under review here:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047426.html
>>
>> New regression test was added for this issue and it is passing with other JAXWS regression and JCK8 related tests.
>>
>> With Best Regards,
>> Aleksei
>>
>> [1] JAXB-RI related commits:
>> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/8cbd5e0ec41c94d743c6ae993289e7a18d00aed4
>> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/2358bcf5ec96e0285e305647887d65adad6ee892
>> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/eeb5c5631a0a9311c52b23cc20344e6b342cd42a
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


From lance.andersen at oracle.com  Fri Jun 16 18:22:32 2017
From: lance.andersen at oracle.com (Lance Andersen)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:22:32 -0400
Subject: [8u-dev] RFR (JAXWS): 8172297: In java 8,
 the marshalling with JAX-WS does not escape carriage return
In-Reply-To: <1e31001a-54ca-afb5-562b-c41622f00254@oracle.com>
References: <1e31001a-54ca-afb5-562b-c41622f00254@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4B1A4385-1C03-43CA-83CD-8AC4C1BBE524@oracle.com>

Hi Aleks,

The changes looked fine to me.

Best
Lance
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Aleks Efimov <aleksej.efimov at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please, help to review the fix that helps JAXWS marshaller to properly escape new-line and carriage return symbols in webservice string parameters:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8172297/8/00
> 
> The source part of this fix is a partial backport of JAXWS-RI sync changes that addressed this issue in jaxb-ri project [1].
> The sync changes are currently under review here:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047426.html
> 
> New regression test was added for this issue and it is passing with other JAXWS regression and JCK8 related tests.
> 
> With Best Regards,
> Aleksei
> 
> [1] JAXB-RI related commits:
> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/8cbd5e0ec41c94d743c6ae993289e7a18d00aed4
> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/2358bcf5ec96e0285e305647887d65adad6ee892
> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/eeb5c5631a0a9311c52b23cc20344e6b342cd42a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

 <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
 <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
 <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering 
1 Network Drive 
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen at oracle.com <mailto:Lance.Andersen at oracle.com>




From aleksej.efimov at oracle.com  Fri Jun 16 18:23:24 2017
From: aleksej.efimov at oracle.com (Aleks Efimov)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:23:24 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] RFR (JAXWS): 8172297: In java 8, the marshalling with
 JAX-WS does not escape carriage return
In-Reply-To: <4B1A4385-1C03-43CA-83CD-8AC4C1BBE524@oracle.com>
References: <1e31001a-54ca-afb5-562b-c41622f00254@oracle.com>
 <4B1A4385-1C03-43CA-83CD-8AC4C1BBE524@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <98c132b2-aa05-1436-54bb-453c9fd5809a@oracle.com>

Thank you for the review, Lance!

On 06/16/2017 07:22 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:
> Hi Aleks,
>
> The changes looked fine to me.
>
> Best
> Lance
>> On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Aleks Efimov <aleksej.efimov at oracle.com 
>> <mailto:aleksej.efimov at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please, help to review the fix that helps JAXWS marshaller to 
>> properly escape new-line and carriage return symbols in webservice 
>> string parameters:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8172297/8/00 
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eaefimov/8172297/8/00>
>>
>> The source part of this fix is a partial backport of JAXWS-RI sync 
>> changes that addressed this issue in jaxb-ri project [1].
>> The sync changes are currently under review here:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2017-May/047426.html
>>
>> New regression test was added for this issue and it is passing with 
>> other JAXWS regression and JCK8 related tests.
>>
>> With Best Regards,
>> Aleksei
>>
>> [1] JAXB-RI related commits:
>> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/8cbd5e0ec41c94d743c6ae993289e7a18d00aed4
>> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/2358bcf5ec96e0285e305647887d65adad6ee892
>> https://github.com/javaee/jaxb-v2/commit/eeb5c5631a0a9311c52b23cc20344e6b342cd42a
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif><http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance 
> Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
> Oracle Java Engineering
> 1 Network Drive
> Burlington, MA 01803
> Lance.Andersen at oracle.com <mailto:Lance.Andersen at oracle.com>
>
>
>


From poonam.bajaj at oracle.com  Fri Jun 16 22:35:40 2017
From: poonam.bajaj at oracle.com (Poonam Parhar)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for JDK-8178536: OOM ERRORS +
 SERVICE-THREAD TAKES A PROCESSOR TO 100%
Message-ID: <587c08f2-9321-4546-9660-ec4569c48a4a@default>

Hello,

 

Could I get the approval for backporting the following change to 8u-dev:

Bug HYPERLINK "https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178536"JDK-8178536: OOM ERRORS + SERVICE-THREAD TAKES A PROCESSOR TO 100%
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/8178536/webrev.hotspot/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/8178536/webrev.jdk/
Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-June/021376.html

The fix applies cleanly to the JDK 8u repository.

Thanks,
Poonam

 

 

 

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Mon Jun 19 13:19:01 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:19:01 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for JDK-8178536: OOM ERRORS +
 SERVICE-THREAD TAKES A PROCESSOR TO 100%
In-Reply-To: <587c08f2-9321-4546-9660-ec4569c48a4a@default>
References: <587c08f2-9321-4546-9660-ec4569c48a4a@default>
Message-ID: <20170619131901.GC3310@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 16/06/17 03:35, Poonam Parhar wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>  
> 
> Could I get the approval for backporting the following change to 8u-dev:
> 
> Bug HYPERLINK "https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178536"JDK-8178536: OOM ERRORS + SERVICE-THREAD TAKES A PROCESSOR TO 100%
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/8178536/webrev.hotspot/
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~poonam/8178536/webrev.jdk/
> Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/2017-June/021376.html
> 
> The fix applies cleanly to the JDK 8u repository.
> 
> Thanks,
> Poonam
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  

From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com  Mon Jun 19 14:02:23 2017
From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (=?utf-8?Q?Hannes_Walln=C3=B6fer?=)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:02:23 +0200
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8181191: getUint32 returning Long
Message-ID: <A1BBDCE8-5238-490F-A6A4-B430C5D5AF6C@oracle.com>

HI, 

I?m looking to backport the following to jdk8u-dev:

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181191
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8181191/webrev/
Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2017-June/006954.html

The jdk10 patch applies cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling.

Thanks,
Hannes

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Mon Jun 19 15:15:16 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:15:16 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8181191: getUint32 returning Long
In-Reply-To: <A1BBDCE8-5238-490F-A6A4-B430C5D5AF6C@oracle.com>
References: <A1BBDCE8-5238-490F-A6A4-B430C5D5AF6C@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20170619151516.GD3310@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 19/06/17 04:02, Hannes Walln?fer wrote:
> HI, 
> 
> I?m looking to backport the following to jdk8u-dev:
> 
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181191
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8181191/webrev/
> Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2017-June/006954.html
> 
> The jdk10 patch applies cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hannes

From kevin.walls at oracle.com  Fri Jun 23 16:15:00 2017
From: kevin.walls at oracle.com (Kevin Walls)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:15:00 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8161598: Kitchensink fails:
 assert(nm->insts_contains(original_pc)) failed: original PC must be in
 nmethod/CompiledMethod
Message-ID: <7607d86e-b17f-e64f-02ef-2d1ad85c2e4e@oracle.com>

Hi

I'd like to get approval to do an 8u backport for:

8161598: Kitchensink fails: assert(nm->insts_contains(original_pc)) 
failed: original PC must be in nmethod/CompiledMethod
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161598

The jdk9 change was: 
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/ef326749824a

8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8161598/webrev.00/index.html

Reviewed by original author on the hotspot runtime list: 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-June/023771.html

JPRT build and test are OK.

Thanks!
Kevin



From sean.coffey at oracle.com  Fri Jun 23 16:40:05 2017
From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:40:05 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8161598: Kitchensink fails:
 assert(nm->insts_contains(original_pc)) failed: original PC must be in
 nmethod/CompiledMethod
In-Reply-To: <7607d86e-b17f-e64f-02ef-2d1ad85c2e4e@oracle.com>
References: <7607d86e-b17f-e64f-02ef-2d1ad85c2e4e@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <0ed8a111-4c89-071c-df35-3ab3a7b448ed@oracle.com>

Approved.

Regards,
Sean.

On 23/06/17 17:15, Kevin Walls wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd like to get approval to do an 8u backport for:
>
> 8161598: Kitchensink fails: assert(nm->insts_contains(original_pc)) 
> failed: original PC must be in nmethod/CompiledMethod
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161598
>
> The jdk9 change was: 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/ef326749824a
>
> 8u webrev: 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8161598/webrev.00/index.html
>
> Reviewed by original author on the hotspot runtime list: 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-June/023771.html
>
> JPRT build and test are OK.
>
> Thanks!
> Kevin
>
>


From kevin.walls at oracle.com  Fri Jun 23 17:04:43 2017
From: kevin.walls at oracle.com (Kevin Walls)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:04:43 +0100
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8161598: Kitchensink fails:
 assert(nm->insts_contains(original_pc)) failed: original PC must be in
 nmethod/CompiledMethod
In-Reply-To: <0ed8a111-4c89-071c-df35-3ab3a7b448ed@oracle.com>
References: <7607d86e-b17f-e64f-02ef-2d1ad85c2e4e@oracle.com>
 <0ed8a111-4c89-071c-df35-3ab3a7b448ed@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <0f6afa55-e18f-a069-0859-de7c873787b7@oracle.com>

Thanks Sean!


On 23/06/2017 17:40, Se?n Coffey wrote:
> Approved.
>
> Regards,
> Sean.
>
> On 23/06/17 17:15, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I'd like to get approval to do an 8u backport for:
>>
>> 8161598: Kitchensink fails: assert(nm->insts_contains(original_pc)) 
>> failed: original PC must be in nmethod/CompiledMethod
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161598
>>
>> The jdk9 change was: 
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/hotspot/rev/ef326749824a
>>
>> 8u webrev: 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kevinw/8161598/webrev.00/index.html
>>
>> Reviewed by original author on the hotspot runtime list: 
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2017-June/023771.html
>>
>> JPRT build and test are OK.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>


From sean.coffey at oracle.com  Mon Jun 26 16:37:58 2017
From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:37:58 +0100
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Request for approval : 8182672: Java 8u121 on Linux
 intermittently returns null for MAC address
In-Reply-To: <5951359C.9000704@oracle.com>
References: <5951359C.9000704@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <6ab09391-5e94-077b-b849-2fa923016519@oracle.com>

Looking to backport this to JDK 8u.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8182672.8u-dev/webrev/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182672
JDK 8u review thread : 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2017-June/010859.html

regards,
Sean.


From sean.coffey at oracle.com  Mon Jun 26 17:16:57 2017
From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:16:57 +0100
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Request for approval : 8071424 : JCK test
 api/java_net/Socket/descriptions.html#Bind crashes on Windows
Message-ID: <e84b9d57-212d-92fb-8b68-4b593c7592f9@oracle.com>

Looking to backport this change to jdk8u-dev. The fix comes back into 
the 8 code without issue. Tests are green

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8071424
JDK 9 changeset : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/1f8bdf15726f

review thread : 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2015-January/008837.html

-- 
Regards,
Sean.


From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Tue Jun 27 13:02:21 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:02:21 +0100
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Request for approval : 8182672: Java 8u121 on Linux
 intermittently returns null for MAC address
In-Reply-To: <6ab09391-5e94-077b-b849-2fa923016519@oracle.com>
References: <5951359C.9000704@oracle.com>
 <6ab09391-5e94-077b-b849-2fa923016519@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20170627130221.GA4568@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 26/06/17 05:37, Se?n Coffey wrote:
> Looking to backport this to JDK 8u.
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8182672.8u-dev/webrev/
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182672
> JDK 8u review thread :
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2017-June/010859.html
> 
> regards,
> Sean.
> 

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Tue Jun 27 13:02:53 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:02:53 +0100
Subject: [jdk8u-dev] Request for approval : 8071424 : JCK test
 api/java_net/Socket/descriptions.html#Bind crashes on Windows
In-Reply-To: <e84b9d57-212d-92fb-8b68-4b593c7592f9@oracle.com>
References: <e84b9d57-212d-92fb-8b68-4b593c7592f9@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20170627130253.GB4568@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 26/06/17 06:16, Se?n Coffey wrote:
> Looking to backport this change to jdk8u-dev. The fix comes back into the 8
> code without issue. Tests are green
> 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8071424
> JDK 9 changeset : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/1f8bdf15726f
> 
> review thread :
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/net-dev/2015-January/008837.html
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Sean.
> 

From david.buck at oracle.com  Thu Jun 29 13:14:03 2017
From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:44:03 +0530
Subject: [8u] RFA 8066185: VM crashed with SIGSEGV
 VirtualMemoryTracker::add_reserved_region
Message-ID: <d14f75fc-6a2f-cc4b-9c41-0842c1cc3529@oracle.com>

Hi!

Please approve the backport of the following fix. The change applies 
cleanly after unshuffling.

bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066185

JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/37d1442d53bc

original review thread: 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-February/031758.html

Cheers,
-Buck

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Thu Jun 29 15:05:51 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:05:51 +0100
Subject: [8u] RFA 8066185: VM crashed with SIGSEGV
 VirtualMemoryTracker::add_reserved_region
In-Reply-To: <d14f75fc-6a2f-cc4b-9c41-0842c1cc3529@oracle.com>
References: <d14f75fc-6a2f-cc4b-9c41-0842c1cc3529@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20170629150551.GA3563@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 29/06/17 06:44, David Buck wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Please approve the backport of the following fix. The change applies cleanly
> after unshuffling.
> 
> bug report: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066185
> 
> JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/37d1442d53bc
> 
> original review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-February/031758.html
> 
> Cheers,
> -Buck

From bhanu.prakash.gopularam at oracle.com  Fri Jun 30 09:57:26 2017
From: bhanu.prakash.gopularam at oracle.com (Bhanu Gopularam)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 02:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8179564: Missing @bug for tests added with
 JDK-8165367
Message-ID: <0d4e15a3-b8e1-468b-911b-c2d80736ff49@default>

Hi all,

May I get the approval for following simple backport 'JDK-8179564: Missing @bug for tests added with JDK-8165367' to jdk8u.

Jdk10 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179564 

Jdk10 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-June/015989.html

Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bgopularam/JDK-8179564/webrev.00/ 

Thanks,
Bhanu

From rob.mckenna at oracle.com  Fri Jun 30 12:04:01 2017
From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:04:01 +0100
Subject: [8u] RFA for JDK-8179564: Missing @bug for tests added with
 JDK-8165367
In-Reply-To: <0d4e15a3-b8e1-468b-911b-c2d80736ff49@default>
References: <0d4e15a3-b8e1-468b-911b-c2d80736ff49@default>
Message-ID: <20170630120401.GA3295@vimes>

Approved

    -Rob

On 30/06/17 02:57, Bhanu Gopularam wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> May I get the approval for following simple backport 'JDK-8179564: Missing @bug for tests added with JDK-8165367' to jdk8u.
> 
> Jdk10 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179564 
> 
> Jdk10 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2017-June/015989.html
> 
> Webrev link: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bgopularam/JDK-8179564/webrev.00/ 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bhanu

From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com  Fri Jun 30 13:20:08 2017
From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (=?utf-8?Q?Hannes_Walln=C3=B6fer?=)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:20:08 +0200
Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8182996: Incorrect mapping Long type
 to JavaScript equivalent
Message-ID: <5FF7D9DC-BEEC-4E70-9823-DC954707321A@oracle.com>

Hi,

please approve backport of this bug fix to 8u-dev:

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182996
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8182996/webrev/
Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2017-June/006964.html

The jdk10 patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev after path reshuffling

Thanks,
Hannes