8298413: [s390] CPUInfoTest fails due to uppercase feature string

[offamitkumar]

trafficstars

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of commit 9dad874f from the openjdk/jdk repository.

The commit being backported was authored by Amit Kumar on 7 Feb 2023 and was reviewed by Martin Doerr and Lutz Schmidt.

Thanks!

---

Progress

• [x] Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• [x] Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• [x] Commit message must refer to an issue
• [ ] JDK-8298413 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8298413: [s390] CPUInfoTest fails due to uppercase feature string (Bug - P4 - Requested)

Reviewers

• Lutz Schmidt (@RealLucy - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/2449/head:pull/2449
$ git checkout pull/2449

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/2449
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev.git pull/2449/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 2449

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 2449

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk17u-dev/pull/2449.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper[bot]]

:wave: Welcome back amitkumar! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk[bot]]

@offamitkumar This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8298413: [s390] CPUInfoTest fails due to uppercase feature string

Reviewed-by: lucy

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 3 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• d2982c673053bdea8bc122230a4d57eda76832ef: 8331641: [17u]: Bump GHA bootstrap JDK to 17.0.11
• 68a2d93588b1b3cdf1a8c8eb135581ede97c8ac3: 8330094: RISC-V: Save and restore FRM in the call stub
• 32bf1f4169fd07291d608323c143832ad48e531e: 8325579: Inconsistent behavior in com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::createSocket

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch. As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@RealLucy) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[openjdk[bot]]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[mlbridge[bot]]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (6276d5f9)

[offamitkumar]

I have done testing on s390x and test is passing on JDK17u-dev without any issue. I guess if I backport https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/8142 then it could be clean. But I'm not sure.

@RealLucy would you please review this one and look if I should backport the PR I mentioned above ?

[openjdk[bot]]

⚠️ @offamitkumar This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

[RealLucy]

I guess if I backport openjdk/jdk#8142 then it could be clean. But I'm not sure.

You should never consider backporting such a huge, and unrelated, change just to achieve cleanliness of such a trivial backport. The effort you have to invest is way higher than the benefit you get.

[offamitkumar]

You should never consider backporting such a huge, and unrelated, change just to achieve cleanliness of such a trivial backport. The effort you have to invest is way higher than the benefit you get.

Sure. Thank you.

[offamitkumar]

/approval request Test is failing on JDK17 as well. So need to backport the fix. I have done testing and no regression seen. The change is s390x specific so should be fine with other archs as well.

[openjdk[bot]]

@offamitkumar 8298413: The approval request has been created successfully.

[offamitkumar]

Thanks Lutz for review.

/integrate

[openjdk[bot]]

@offamitkumar Your change (at version 6276d5f954eeface8d0851dc9c1d447770949f6b) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[RealLucy]

/sponsor

[openjdk[bot]]

Going to push as commit e97489774f0b893ed173be05e5d848ee2af76775. Since your change was applied there have been 3 commits pushed to the master branch:

• d2982c673053bdea8bc122230a4d57eda76832ef: 8331641: [17u]: Bump GHA bootstrap JDK to 17.0.11
• 68a2d93588b1b3cdf1a8c8eb135581ede97c8ac3: 8330094: RISC-V: Save and restore FRM in the call stub
• 32bf1f4169fd07291d608323c143832ad48e531e: 8325579: Inconsistent behavior in com.sun.jndi.ldap.Connection::createSocket

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk[bot]]

@RealLucy @offamitkumar Pushed as commit e97489774f0b893ed173be05e5d848ee2af76775.

:bulb: You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.