RFR (trivial) 8208074: [TESTBUG] vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/RedefineClasses/StressRedefineWithoutBytecodeCorruption/TestDescription.java failed with NullPointerException

[serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com]

On 7/31/18 09:13, Chris Plummer wrote:
> On 7/31/18 5:06 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/18 3:29 AM, serguei.spitsyn at oracle.com wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Good catch.
>>> It is possible that this webrev does not fix the JDK-8202896.
>>> The JDK-8202896 is about timeouts which are normally intermittent 
>>> (is it right?).
>>>
>>> There are two options here:
>>>   A: close 8202896 as a dup of 8208074
>>>   B: keep the test problem listed and labeled with 8202896
>>>
>>> Let's wait for Coleen's answer.
>>
>> I closed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8206076 (timeouts 
>> with -Xcomp)
>>  as a duplicate of
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203820 (where I took 
>> InMemoryCompiler out of the threads)
>> because that's where the attempted fix was.
>>
>> I think
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202896 (getting Too many 
>> open files intermittently)
>> should be closed as a duplicate too because it's the same root cause.
>>
>> And this one:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208074 (broken fix)
>> fixes my fix and will remove the test from the ProblemList.txt.
>>
>> I believe it should be removed fromt he problem list because I don't 
>> think it will time out or intermittently fail again for the same 
>> reason.  If it times out or fails for a different reason, we should 
>> file a whole new bug, with that specific analysis.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Coleen
>
> Hi Coleen,
>
> That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for cleaning up the bug situation.

+1

Thanks,
Serguei
>
> Chris
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Serguei
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/31/18 00:16, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>>> Sorry, I thought this had been pushed already, but it hasn't. But 
>>>> it still looks like JDK-8202896 should be closed as a dup, and it's 
>>>> unclear to me if JDK-8206076 has been fixed and this test can be 
>>>> removed from the problem list.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On 7/30/18 6:34 PM, Chris Plummer wrote:
>>>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that this had been pushed, I assume JDK-8202896 should be 
>>>>> closed as a dup. And what about JDK-8206076? Is it fixed by this 
>>>>> change also?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/30/18 1:49 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>> Summary: fixed refactoring caused by JDK-8203820
>>>>>>
>>>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8208074.01/webrev
>>>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208074
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ran the test in mach5 on all Oracle supported platforms. Also 
>>>>>> took the test out of ProblemList.txt because JDK-8203820 fixes 
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202896.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Coleen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>