Contribution to JDK - 8313674

[Iñigo Mediavilla]

Thanks for cc'ing Aleksey, Thomas.

Sorry if I went ahead and created a PR because I hadn't received a response
for a few days. I apologize if I stepped on someone's toes, I just wanted
to show an example of a possible solution and run it through people in this
mailing list.





On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:21 PM Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Iñigo,
>
> as others have mentioned, the normal way to do this would be to ping the
> owner of the issue. They may already be planning a different fix or have a
> different solution in mind.
>
> I am cc'ing Aleksey; he can chime in if Elif does not react.
>
> ..Thomas
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:15 PM Iñigo Mediavilla <imediava at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I went ahead and created a proposal PR to tackle this issue:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19021.
>>
>> I'd be happy to hear anyone's thoughts on the proposed solution, and to
>> hopefully get a sponsor on my first attempt to contribute to openjdk.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Íñigo
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Iñigo Mediavilla <imediava at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> After looking at JDK-8313674 I'm wondering what is the current impact:
>>>
>>> - Is it affecting the CI or the CI is always running in linux systems
>>> with sda devices ?
>>> - Is it that local tests fail when they’re run from a linux device that
>>> doesn’t have a sda device ?
>>>
>>> In terms of possible fixes, I think that a quick fix would be to add a
>>> nvm* device in the list of hard-coded devices to be tested. The test could
>>> iterate over the list of devices to test skipping devices that don't exist
>>> but running the checks on the first existing device.
>>>
>>> As an alternative I also considered adding logic to list existing block
>>> devices and picking one to run the test, however I've not being able to
>>> figure out a way to do this in a simple way:
>>>
>>> - There are libraries like (https://github.com/jnr/jnr-posix/) that
>>> implement that logic, but I feel like it’s not worth incorporating such
>>> library only for the purpose of this test.
>>> - I see that there are parts of the native code in the JDK repo that use
>>> S_ISBLK to check if a device is a block device, but I haven’t been able to
>>> find that information surfaced to Java.
>>>
>>> Happy to hear the thoughts of people with more background on the topic :)
>>>
>>> Íñigo Mediavilla Saiz
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 5:23 PM Iñigo Mediavilla <imediava at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> For my first contribution to OpenJDK, I've started looking into
>>>> JDK-8313674.
>>>>
>>>> Elif Aslan, I see that you've been assigned to this ticket, would you
>>>> mind if I try to propose a solution for it ?
>>>>
>>>> If Elif is OK with it, I'd like to find a sponsor, since this would be
>>>> my first time contributing to OpenJDK. Would anyone be available to sponsor
>>>> my contribution ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>
>>>> Íñigo Mediavilla Saiz
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/nio-dev/attachments/20240430/ef5dfc45/attachment.htm>