RFR 8046588: test for SO_FLOW_SLA availability does not check for EACCESS

[Michael McMahon]

On 13/06/14 12:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 13/06/2014 11:49, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>
>> Okay. I can see the reasoning why supportedOptions should refer to 
>> the platform rather than the process/instance
>> running. We could consider adding a sub-class of IOException for 
>> permission related failures, but I'm not proposing
>> to do that here. For now, I'll just ensure that the error message 
>> conveys the permission problem.
>>
>> New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8046588/webrev.2/
>>
>> We also need to check for EPERM. Apparently, there are some codepaths 
>> that use that instead
>> of EACCES.
> For the test change then does it mean that a genuine failure will 
> cause the test to pass? I don't like change exception messages but I 
> just wonder if this test might have to resort to that to avoid passing 
> then there is another problem.
>
> -Alan

To be honest, the test doesn't/(can't easily) check if a flow has been 
created. So, in practice
a success return code doesn't prove that everything is working. 
Exercising the code at least
is a basic smoke test. If we add a new exception then maybe we can 
revisit, but I wanted
to get this change in ahead of the refactoring for modularity, becuase 
this change
is needed for 8u20 and I don't want to hold that up and the refactoring 
work will take some
time to review (it's a bit more complicated than expected).

Michael