From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9145 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2012 18:33:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 9138 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2012 18:33:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com (HELO mx4-phx2.redhat.com) (209.132.183.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:33:50 +0000 Received: from zmail13.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail13.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.15]) by mx4-phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA1IWv6k017108; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:32:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:33:00 -0000 From: Jon VanAlten To: Andrew Hughes Cc: systemtap@sourceware.org, distro-pkg-dev@openjdk.java.net, Lukas Berk , Mark Wielaard Message-ID: <394779842.5094559.1351794777018.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <46828227.1968825.1351600651879.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Enhanced Garbage Collection Probe Points MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-q4/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Hughes" > > > > > > Why has this been pushed? We don't want more patches adding to > > > IcedTea7. > > > Please revert. > > > > > > > I'm sorry for the mix-up. Andrew and I discussed this further > > offline (sorry, this did not happen in public, but neither was it > > intentionally private). > > > > We reached the conclusion (I believe) that it would be best to > > wait and hear from Mark about plans referred to in email archive > > link below. Mark, do you have any comment here? Would it be > > for the best to revert here and apply instead to 7 forest? > > > > Also, I've backported this changeset to icedtea6, and it should > > also probably go somehow to 8. Can someone refresh me, as a > > rather seldom-contributor here, what the correct repos are for > > these? > > > > Patch needs to be applied to: > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea6/ > http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea7-forest/jdk/ > http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea8-forest/jdk/ > > and reverted from: > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea7/ > > as all patches for 7 & 8 go to the forest. > I would also prefer the 7 stuff to go to the forest, but... > From: "Mark Wielaard" > > Adding patches directly to the tree is fine with me. > My only hesitation was my own confusion since the default > configure/make setup doesn't pick up a patched forest. > You don't have that issue with patches, which are directly > applied. If we are going for a complete forest setup it > might make sense to also add the tapsets and testsuite > directly there. > > I'll try and figure it all out again and also port the existing > patches to the forest. Hints and tips appreciated. So about this patch and 7, I'm getting mixed messages here. Some other things to consider here: The new work from Lukas can be conceptually divided into two parts: the new probes added to hotspot code, and the tapset referring to those probes. The thing is, the probes are not afaik usable from linux (my dev/testing platform) without some parts of Mark's patches. For this reason, I'm hesitant to port and push Lukas' work to forest, ahead of Mark's (it becomes essentially dead code except on Solaris). So, would it be acceptable to keep in tree for now, porting to 7/8 forests later once the prerequisite bits have been ported? (in the meantime, I *have* ported to 6 tree and pushed that, since there is no controversy there...) cheers, jon