> On 16 Apr 2018, at 10:29, Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com> wrote: > > Hi Srividya, > > thanks for doing this work. > > Change looks good from my side, except for a small indentation flaw in lines > 91 and 94 and the copyright year that needs to be adjusted. But I can fix > this when I push it.
+1 > Let’s wait for another review (Chris) before we can push it. I’ll also do > some testing. I’ll run some tests with this patch too. > I’ll also take care of the backport after the push to jdk11. Yes. Let’s first push this to jdk/jdk, then follow up with a back port request as appropriate. -Chris. > Best regards > Christoph > <> > From: Srividya Shamaiah [mailto:ssham...@in.ibm.com > <mailto:ssham...@in.ibm.com>] > Sent: Montag, 16. April 2018 10:44 > To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com > <mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>> > Cc: Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com > <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com>>; OpenJDK Network Dev list > <net-dev@openjdk.java.net <mailto:net-dev@openjdk.java.net>> > Subject: RFR(XS): 8201369: Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName reverse lookup > on Solaris only > > Hi Chris, > Please review the attached patch in > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mhorie/8201369/webrev/ > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mhorie/8201369/webrev/> > > Can you also backport this to JDK 8, we have customers waiting for this fix > at JDK 8 level. > > Thanks, > Srividya S > > <image001.gif>Srividya Shamaiah---11/04/2018 03:35:38 PM---Thanks Chris , As > you suggested, I will provide the patch based on jdk 11. Thanks, > > From: Srividya Shamaiah/India/IBM > To: "Langer, Christoph" <christoph.lan...@sap.com > <mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>> > Cc: Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com > <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com>>, OpenJDK Network Dev list > <net-dev@openjdk.java.net <mailto:net-dev@openjdk.java.net>> > Date: 11/04/2018 03:35 PM > Subject: RE: 8169865 : Changes not ported to IPv4 > > > > Thanks Chris , As you suggested, I will provide the patch based on jdk 11. > > Thanks, > Srividya S > > > <image001.gif>"Langer, Christoph" ---11/04/2018 02:51:51 PM---Hi Srividya, I > would also welcome this fix. > > From: "Langer, Christoph" <christoph.lan...@sap.com > <mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>> > To: Srividya Shamaiah <ssham...@in.ibm.com <mailto:ssham...@in.ibm.com>>, > Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com>> > Cc: OpenJDK Network Dev list <net-dev@openjdk.java.net > <mailto:net-dev@openjdk.java.net>> > Date: 11/04/2018 02:51 PM > Subject: RE: 8169865 : Changes not ported to IPv4 > > > > Hi Srividya, > > I would also welcome this fix. > > Will you do the fix based on the jdk (11) depot? I think > Java_java_net_Inet4AddressImpl_getLocalHostName should then be exactly the > same as Java_java_net_Inet6AddressImpl_getLocalHostName. I can assist you > with sponsoring/backporting to JDK8, if you like. > > Best regards > Christoph > > > > From: net-dev [mailto:net-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net > <mailto:net-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net>] On Behalf Of Srividya Shamaiah > Sent: Mittwoch, 11. April 2018 09:19 > To: Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com>> > Cc: OpenJDK Network Dev list <net-dev@openjdk.java.net > <mailto:net-dev@openjdk.java.net>> > Subject: Re: 8169865 : Changes not ported to IPv4 > Thank you Chris for opening the JIRA bug, I will work on the fix and > contribute it . > > Thanks, > Srividya S > > <image001.gif>Chris Hegarty ---10/04/2018 08:51:05 PM---> On 10 Apr 2018, at > 12:34, Srividya Shamaiah <ssham...@in.ibm.com <mailto:ssham...@in.ibm.com>> > wrote: > > > From: Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com > <mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com>> > To: Srividya Shamaiah <ssham...@in.ibm.com <mailto:ssham...@in.ibm.com>> > Cc: OpenJDK Network Dev list <net-dev@openjdk.java.net > <mailto:net-dev@openjdk.java.net>> > Date: 10/04/2018 08:51 PM > Subject: Re: 8169865 : Changes not ported to IPv4 > > > > > > > > On 10 Apr 2018, at 12:34, Srividya Shamaiah <ssham...@in.ibm.com > > <mailto:ssham...@in.ibm.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > One of our customer reported a similar issue and the issue can be resolved > > through the bug fix 8169865 which was include at 8u152 level. We were > > looking this issue from AIX perspective as it did not do the reverse lookup > > with bug fix 8169865 (as reverse lookup is limited to solaris after the bug > > fix). > > > > While implementing the fix, we want to make sure the fix works for all > > scenario. As there is an inconsistency between IPv6 and IPv4 after 8169865 > > (as reverse lookup still exists for IPv4 on AIX and Linux), we are afraid > > whether customer can hit the same issue if they use IPv4. > > > > Please confirm whether it makes sense to remove the reverse lookup of IPv4 > > for AIX and linux platforms so that IPv4 and IPv6 processing is consistent > > for those platforms. > > Yes, I believe it does. > > I filed the follow JIRA issue to track this: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugs.openjdk.java.net_browse_JDK-2D8201369&d=DwIFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=cY5OjfQF2gZ_G00XrJYGrxPgLDHmXjFqs49sDD9oJN0&m=-LhngTQSiYD1d12WSDvX2Jldxusyok9A7LqJ4ZEIzos&s=8fDzPwCaD2hwIOSWkfchiRBeDz3uSyzk81kDXZFarXo&e= > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugs.openjdk.java.net_browse_JDK-2D8201369&d=DwIFAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=cY5OjfQF2gZ_G00XrJYGrxPgLDHmXjFqs49sDD9oJN0&m=-LhngTQSiYD1d12WSDvX2Jldxusyok9A7LqJ4ZEIzos&s=8fDzPwCaD2hwIOSWkfchiRBeDz3uSyzk81kDXZFarXo&e=> > > -Chris. > > > > >
