jmx-dev [ping] Re: RFR 8027163: sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/CustomLauncherTest.java should be updated for jdk8 removal of solaris-32bit support

Jaroslav Bachorik jaroslav.bachorik at oracle.com
Mon Nov 18 04:00:28 PST 2013


On 18.11.2013 12:50, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> Shouldn’t test/sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/solaris-sparc/launcher be removed as part of this change?

Probably yes - if there are no 32bit solaris build hosts then it can be 
removed.

-JB-

>
> /Staffan
>
> On 18 Nov 2013, at 11:09, Jaroslav Bachorik <jaroslav.bachorik at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Could I get this reviewed, please?
>>
>> -JB-
>>
>> On 4.11.2013 14:07, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>>> Please, review the following test change:
>>>
>>> Issue:  https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027163
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8027163/webrev.00/
>>>
>>> Currently, the test is designed to work only on solaris-32bit. With the
>>> support removed it is necessary to adapt the test as well. This includes
>>> generating the solaris-sparcv9 and solaris-amd64 binaries for the
>>> launcher the test is using.
>>>
>>> The test itself needs changing the way it retrieves the ARCH name for
>>> sparcv9 architecture. Also, since it is forbidden to check in any files
>>> with executable permissions the test must account for this and adjust
>>> the file permissions temporarily while executing. It needs to revert to
>>> the original permissions when it's finished to prevent reporting the
>>> launcher files as modified in HG.
>>>
>>> While testing the changes the
>>> sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/LocalManagementTest.java kept failing
>>> intermittently (50%) when run in agentvm mode together with
>>> CustomLauncherTest.java on sparcv9 machines. Forcing both of these tests
>>> to run in othervm mode seems to fix the problem.
>>>
>>> There is a small debugging improvement in
>>> ProcessTools.java#startProcess() method - when the phaser timesout or is
>>> interrupted all the stack traces are dumped to stderr to help diagnosing
>>> any locking situations.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -JB-
>>
>



More information about the serviceability-dev mailing list