Backports to jdk11u and jdk17u

Lindenmaier, Goetz goetz.lindenmaier at
Tue Jan 17 15:06:35 UTC 2023


As pointed out in the mail you cited below, not breaking 
existing code is the major concern of such a backport in 
the view of the maintainers.  

Shared changes should be kept to a minimum.
Especially in 11, only enabling shared changes are
eligible, not changes that aim to improve the performance.

It would be great to see a complete list of 
changes that need to be backported. These should 
make up a functioning port. A project repo can serve
the purpose to collect these changes and prove
they are a complete set.
We can then look at this list of changes and give a 
basic ok for these to be integrated in 17u/11u. Then
you can run the normal backport process for them.

Best regards, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdk-updates-dev <jdk-updates-dev-retn at> On Behalf Of
> yangfei at
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:23 AM
> To: Ludovic Henry <ludovic at>
> Cc: 章翔 <zhangxiang at>; riscv-port-dev at;
> at; jdk-updates-dev at
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Backports to jdk11u and jdk17u
> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from
> yangfei at Learn why this is important at
> ]
> Hi,
> -----Original Messages-----
> From:"Ludovic Henry" <ludovic at>
> Sent Time:2023-01-16 23:36:33 (Monday)
> To: "章翔" <zhangxiang at>
> Cc: yangfei at, riscv-port-dev at,
> at, jdk-updates-dev at
> Subject: Re: Re: Backports to jdk11u and jdk17u
> >> However there is one big difference between general jdk17u and
> riscv secific one: while jdk17u accepts only bug fixes and minor perf
> improvements, the riscv-port-jdk17u will have to accept larger patches: as
> risc-v port is far from being perfect so far, performance-wise is worse than
> arm64 port.
> >  I expect to initiate the backport in a dedicated openjdk/riscv-port-
> jdk17u repository for exactly that. Until the riscv port is considered very
> stable and performant, we likely want to keep it in a separate repository.
> When stable, we can work with the relevant maintainers of jdk8u, jdk11u
> and jdk17u for possible integrations.
> That sounds reasonable to me as we are able to find more time to look at the
> jvm performance issues on RISCV now.
> >  > In fact, there were some discussions before on the list about the
> backporting work [1].
> >
> >  I missed this one, thanks for pointing it out.
> >
> >  > I'm Xiang Zhang from the Institute of Software, Chinese Academy
> of Sciences. I'm backporting jdk8u for RISC-V support. Here is my
> development repository:
> >>
> >  If there is a riscv-port-jdk8u project, would you be interested to
> contribute there directly?
> >
> >  In the meantime, I'll contact skara-dev to figure out what it would take
> to create the riscv-port-jdk11u and riscv-port-jdk17u repositories.
> Besides the repositories needed, I also wonder the correct workflow for
> future reviewing & merging of backporting PRs on those repos.
> I would like to hear comments/suggestions from the jdk update maintainers.
> Thanks,
> Fei </zhangxiang at></ludovic at>

More information about the riscv-port-dev mailing list