RFR (M): 8210462: Fix remaining mentions of initial mark

[Thomas Schatzl]

Hi Kim, Leo,

   totally forgot to thank you for the reviews. Thanks!

Thomas

On 09.07.20 13:46, Leo Korinth wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/07/2020 14:38, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 2020, at 4:39 AM, Thomas Schatzl 
>>> <thomas.schatzl at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kim,
>>>
>>>   thanks for your review.
>>>
>>> On 03.07.20 22:29, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>>> src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1Policy.cpp
>>>> [removed]
>>>>   636   bool this_pause_was_young_only = 
>>>> collector_state()->in_young_only_phase();
>>>> Why was this variable removed and uses replaced with
>>>> is_young_only_only(this_pause), rather than keeping the variable but
>>>> updating the initialization?
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason is that this_pause_was_young_only is a local defined waaay 
>>> up at the top of that method and I thought instead of referencing 
>>> that one it is better to do the (very simple) function call.
>>> I can change that again if you want.
>>
>> OK.  The “far away” rationale makes sense.
>>
>>> Webrevs:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8210462/webrev.1_to_2/ (diff)
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tschatzl/8210462/webrev.2/ (full)
>>> Testing:
>>> tier1, local gc/g1 jtreg run
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
> 
> Looks good to me too.
> 
> Thanks,
> Leo