RFR: JDK-8247589: Implementation of Alpine Linux/x64 Port
alanb at openjdk.java.net
Mon Sep 7 12:20:40 UTC 2020
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:23:28 GMT, Aleksei Voitylov <avoitylov at openjdk.org> wrote:
> continuing the review thread from here https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2020-September/068546.html
>> The download side of using JNI in these tests is that it complicates the
>> setup a bit for those that run jtreg directly and/or just build the JDK
>> and not the test libraries. You could reduce this burden a bit by
>> limiting the load library/isMusl check to Linux only, meaning isMusl
>> would not be called on other platforms.
>> The alternative you suggest above might indeed be better. I assume you
>> don't mean splitting the tests but rather just adding a second @test
>> description so that the vm.musl case runs the test with a system
>> property that allows the test know the expected load library path behavior.
> I have updated the PR to split the two tests in multiple @test s.
>> The updated comment in java_md.c in this looks good. A minor comment on
>> Platform.isBusybox is Files.isSymbolicLink returning true implies that
>> the link exists so no need to check for exists too. Also the
>> if-then-else style for the new class in ProcessBuilder/Basic.java is
>> inconsistent with the rest of the test so it stands out.
> Thank you, these changes are done in the updated PR.
>> Given the repo transition this weekend then I assume you'll create a PR
>> for the final review at least. Also I see JEP 386 hasn't been targeted
>> yet but I assume Boris, as owner, will propose-to-target and wait for it
>> to be targeted before it is integrated.
> Yes. How can this be best accomplished with the new git workflow?
> - we can continue the review process till the end and I will request the integration to happen only after the JEP is
> targeted. I guess this step is now done by typing "slash integrate" in a comment.
> - we can pause the review process now until the JEP is targeted.
> In the first case I'm kindly asking the Reviewers who already chimed in on that to re-confirm the review here.
Marked as reviewed by alanb (Reviewer).
This change was in review on core-libs-dev and other mailing lists before the switch to skara/git. The issues that I
brought up have been added in the PR and I don't have any further comments.
More information about the jdk-dev