RFR 8208303: Track JNI failures and fail tests

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

We entered RDP2 today (07.26). So only P1 and P2 bug fixes allowed.

Dan


On 7/26/18 3:14 PM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
> Yes, of course it has to be well tested before the push.
> Does it make sense to plan it to push to 11 (after th testing is done)?
>
> Thanks,
> Serguei
>
>
> On 7/26/18 12:08, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>> Please make sure this fix is well tested in Mach5 prior to pushing.
>> In particular, I'm focused on reducing the noise in Mach5 tier[1-3]
>> so adding any new failures there will make me grumpy :-)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/18 3:03 PM, JC Beyler wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> With the FatalError idea, here is the webrev to consider, note it no 
>>> longer changes the tests. If a JNI call fails, then we call FatalError.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think:
>>>
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.01/ 
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8208303/webrev.01/>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Jc
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com 
>>> <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com 
>>> <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi Jc,
>>>
>>>     Good idea.
>>>     I was thinking about something like this.
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Serguei
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 7/26/18 10:40, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>>     Hi Serguei,
>>>>
>>>>     As I was looking at another test bug
>>>>     (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8191519); the
>>>>     proposal for that bug is to have a JNI call to FatalError to
>>>>     provoke a failure.
>>>>
>>>>     If we went down that route, this webrev is simpler, no? Instead
>>>>     of setting failure_status and checking it later; just fail
>>>>     fatally and be done with it, no? That way, the tests in Java
>>>>     land don't have to be changed actually, no?
>>>>
>>>>     What would we prefer for tests? Remember there was a failure
>>>>     and test it later or fail fast via JNI's FatalError?
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>     Jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:04 AM serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
>>>>     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com> <serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com
>>>>     <mailto:serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi Jc,
>>>>
>>>>         It looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks,
>>>>         Serguei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On 7/26/18 09:58, JC Beyler wrote:
>>>>>         Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>         The tests in the HeapMonitor subsystem has a lot of JNI
>>>>>         calls. There is a need for verification and testing if
>>>>>         anything in the JNI subsystem failed unexpectedly.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Here is a webrev that tracks if a JNI call does fail and
>>>>>         the tests will fail if any JNI call does fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Could I have a few reviews please for:
>>>>>         Webrev:
>>>>>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jcbeyler/8208303/webrev.00/
>>>>>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejcbeyler/8208303/webrev.00/>
>>>>>         Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208303
>>>>>
>>>>>         Thanks,
>>>>>         Jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>     Jc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jc
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20180726/618665c8/attachment.html>