On 4/05/2017 2:07 PM, Vyom Tewari wrote:
Hi David,
I will look into the issue.
Thanks. I filed:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179602
as you probably saw.
David
Thanks,
Vyom
On Thursday 04 May 2017 06:29 AM, David Holmes wrote:
please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.open
Hi David,
I will look into the issue.
Thanks,
Vyom
On Thursday 04 May 2017 06:29 AM, David Holmes wrote:
please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8165437/webrev0.7/index.html).
This change is broken on 32-bit systems - JVM_Nanotime returns a jlong
which is alwa
please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8165437/webrev0.7/index.html).
This change is broken on 32-bit systems - JVM_Nanotime returns a jlong
which is always 64-bit, but the code uses long for the nanotimeout
values, which will be 32-bit on 32-bit systems!
This cha
to line 52.
Thanks & Best regards
Christoph
*From:*net-dev [mailto:net-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] *On Behalf Of
*Vyom Tewari
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 27. April 2017 06:16
*To:* Thomas Stüfe ; Chris Hegarty
*Cc:* net-dev
*Subject:* Re: JDK10 RFR: 8165437 Evaluate the use of gettimeofday in
N
ril 2017 06:16
To: Thomas Stüfe ; Chris Hegarty
Cc: net-dev
Subject: Re: JDK10 RFR: 8165437 Evaluate the use of gettimeofday in Networking
code
Hi,
please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8165437/webrev0.7/index.html).
Thanks,
Vyom
On Tuesday 25 April 2017 07
.@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Monday, April 24, 2017 1:07:52 PM
*To:* Vyom Tewari
*Cc:* net-dev
*Subject:* Re: JDK10 RFR: 8165437 Evaluate the use of gettimeofday in
Networking code
Hi Vyom,
sorry for the late response, I had vacation.
Thanks for taking my suggestions! Here some remarks:
---
I
mailto:net-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net>> on
behalf of Thomas Stüfe mailto:thomas.stu...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 1:07:52 PM
To: Vyom Tewari
Cc: net-dev
Subject: Re: JDK10 RFR: 8165437 Evaluate the use of gettimeofday in Networking
code
Hi Vyom,
sorry for the late res
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 05:15, Vyom Tewari wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> please find the updated
> webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8165437/webrev0.7/index.html).
This looks ok to me Vyom, but I think you have misinterpreted my comment...
>> ...
>> 1) src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/PlainSocket
Hi,
please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8165437/webrev0.7/index.html).
Thanks,
Vyom
On Tuesday 25 April 2017 07:34 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi Chris, Vyom,
I have preferences as expressed earlier, but no strong emotions. I can
live with the fix as it is now
Hi Chris, Vyom,
I have preferences as expressed earlier, but no strong emotions. I can live
with the fix as it is now.
Thanks all, and Kind Regards, Thomas
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Chris Hegarty
wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Vyom Tewari
> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Thanks f
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Vyom Tewari wrote:
> ...
>
> Thanks for review, please find the updated
> webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8165437/webrev0.6/index.html)
The changes mainly look good to me, just a few comments:
1) src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/PlainSocketImpl.c
luate the use of gettimeofday in Networking
code
Hi Vyom,
sorry for the late response, I had vacation.
Thanks for taking my suggestions! Here some remarks:
---
I looked a little bit closer into the question why JVM_LEAF is used to wrap
simple little functions like JVM_NanoTi
Hi Vyom,
sorry for the late response, I had vacation.
Thanks for taking my suggestions! Here some remarks:
---
I looked a little bit closer into the question why JVM_LEAF is used to wrap
simple little functions like JVM_NanoTime or JVM_CurrentTimeMillis (among
others). There is no hard technica
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for review, please find the updated
webrev(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vtewari/8165437/webrev0.6/index.html)
i incorporated all the review comments. Regarding why JVM_NanoTime is
defined JVM_LEAF i don't know much, but all the functions which are
defined in jvm.h used some s
Hi Vyom,
Thank you for fixing this!
In addition to Rogers remarks:
aix_close.c:
Could you please also update the SAP copyright?
style nit:
+//nanoTimeout has to be >= 1 millisecond to iterate again.
I thought we use old C style comments? Could you please leave a space
between commen
On Wednesday 12 April 2017 11:05 PM, Vyom Tewari wrote:
Hi Roger,
thanks for review, please see my comment inline.
Vyom
On Wednesday 12 April 2017 08:17 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Vyom,
Thanks for taking this on. I have a few comments and questions.
In aix_close.c line 547 The code fo
Hi Roger,
thanks for review, please see my comment inline.
Vyom
On Wednesday 12 April 2017 08:17 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Vyom,
Thanks for taking this on. I have a few comments and questions.
In aix_close.c line 547 The code for if (nanoTimeout >= NSEC_PER_MSEC)
seems ineffective.
ag
Hi Vyom,
Thanks for taking this on. I have a few comments and questions.
In aix_close.c line 547 The code for if (nanoTimeout >= NSEC_PER_MSEC)
seems ineffective.
The update of nanoTime at 549-550 ensures the timeout is > NSEC_PER_MSEC
if it loops.
On the first pass through the code if nan
18 matches
Mail list logo
