[9] RFR(S): 8059846: InstanceKlass should use MutexLockerEx to acquire OsrList_lock

[Tobias Hartmann]

Thanks, Coleen. I will remove the NEEDS_CLEANUP tag.

Best,
Tobias

On 14.10.2014 20:18, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>
> This change looks good to me.  I suggest since nobody knows why this is here,
> that you remove it:
>
>      // only one compilation can be active
>      NEEDS_CLEANUP
>
> It's old (from sccs):
>
> renes 99/08/30    // only one compilation can be active
> kbr 00/02/22      NEEDS_CLEANUP
>
>
> Coleen
>
>
> On 10/14/14, 11:05 AM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>> Thanks, David and Vladimir.
>>
>> On 14.10.2014 16:58, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Looks good. Should be reviewed by runtime too since changes are in
>>> instanceKlass.cpp
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vlaidmir
>>>
>>> On 10/14/14 5:54 AM, David Chase wrote:
>>>> Hello Tobias,
>>>>
>>>> Not a Reviewer here, but it looks correct to me.
>>>> One question — above I see a NEEDS_CLEANUP notation.
>>>> Do we know (does someone know?) if it refers to this change?
>>>> If so, we could remove that :-).
>>
>> I don't know if this statement is related to my changes but I assume it refers
>> to the comment '// only one compilation can be active'. Maybe someone from the
>> runtime team knows.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tobias
>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 2014-10-14, at 3:55 AM, Tobias Hartmann <tobias.hartmann at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> please review this small code cleanup that replaces the explicit locking of
>>>>> OsrList_lock by a MutexLockerEx instantiation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8059846
>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~thartmann/8059846/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>