Hi Chris, Goetz, I just want to mention that 8170544 is independent from the other changes to InetAddress and would apply with or without the patches from 8167420, 8167457, 8171075 and 8171077.
I'd prefer if we can close 8171075 and 8171077 soon and then look further if 8170544 can still be considered for 9 :) Thanks Christoph > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com] > Sent: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2016 11:34 > To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenma...@sap.com> > Cc: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>; > michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com; OpenJDK Network Dev list <net- > d...@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: RFR: 8170920 SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF options problem for > network channels on MacOS > > Hi Goetz, > > Christoph has already done the work to split these changes into smaller > chunks, 8171075 and 8171077. He has reviews out, and they are on my list > to get to in the next few days. If it is ok, I’d like to proceed with this as > is, > form an initial skim they appear easier to review. > > -Chris. > > > On 13 Dec 2016, at 10:14, Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenma...@sap.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > given the recent changes that were submitted (jigsaw update, aot) > > I don't think Christoph's changes can be considered a major risk. > > They have been worked on for quite a while now, and they are > > tested well on our side. > > So I really would appreciate if they could be submitted as-is. > > Reworking them into smaller changes can introduce new issues > > and will delay the push of the changes further. > > I especially would like to see 8170544 finding its way into jdk9. > > > > Best regards, > > Goetz. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Langer, Christoph > >> Sent: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2016 10:54 > >> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenma...@sap.com> > >> Subject: FW: RFR: 8170920 SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF options problem > for > >> network channels on MacOS > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Michael McMahon [mailto:michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com] > >> Sent: Freitag, 9. Dezember 2016 17:19 > >> To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com> > >> Cc: Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com>; OpenJDK Network Dev list > >> <net-dev@openjdk.java.net> > >> Subject: Re: RFR: 8170920 SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF options problem for > >> network channels on MacOS > >> > >> Those suggestions are reasonable Christoph. I think given the subtle > >> nature of the bug > >> (removing the #include not causing a compile error) I'm a bit wary about > >> pushing wide scale > >> native code changes at this stage of JDK 9. We might therefore defer the > >> other cleanups until 10 > >> opens up in the new year. > >> > >> Michael. > >> > >> On 09/12/2016, 11:16, Langer, Christoph wrote: > >>> Hi Michael, > >>> > >>> the bug then obviously was a side effect of my change > >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/9f0ab4b20ff7 for 8167481. > Sorry > >> for that. > >>> > >>> To follow the concept of my cleanups I'd prefer if you could use #if > >> defined(MACOSX) rather than #ifdef MACOSX in net_util_md.c to be > consistent > >> within the file. > >>> > >>> I also followed the platform order 1. Linux, 2. AIX, 3. Solaris, 4. Mac > >>> in all > >> parts of the native code, so your newly introduced section should go after > the > >> "#if defined(__solaris__)" system header include parts, e.g. line 47 of the > >> original file. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Christoph > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: net-dev [mailto:net-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of > >> Chris > >>>> Hegarty > >>>> Sent: Freitag, 9. Dezember 2016 11:52 > >>>> To: Michael McMahon<michael.x.mcma...@oracle.com>; OpenJDK > >> Network > >>>> Dev list<net-dev@openjdk.java.net> > >>>> Subject: Re: RFR: 8170920 SO_RCVBUF and SO_SNDBUF options problem > for > >>>> network channels on MacOS > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 09/12/16 10:33, Michael McMahon wrote: > >>>>> Could I get the following change reviewed please? > >>>>> > >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8170920/webrev.1/ > >>>> Looks good. > >>>> > >>>> You may just want to remove the "from" year from the copyright > >>>> year range in the test, before pushing. > >>>> > >>>> -Chris.
