Review request: JDK-8211122: Reduce the number of internal classes made accessible to jdk.unsupported

Vladimir Kozlov vladimir.kozlov at
Tue Nov 6 01:51:03 UTC 2018

I looked on tests changes in src/jdk.internal.vm.compiler and test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/jvmci. They look fine.

And you ran hotspot tier1-3 which tests AOT, JVMCI and Graal. So your changes should be fine regarding them since you 
did not get failures.


On 11/1/18 9:16 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This patch includes the following changes that will reduce the
> number of internal classes made accessible to jdk.unsupported
> module via qualified exports.
> 1. move shared secrets to a new jdk.internal.access package.
> jdk.internal.misc package has been a dumping ground for various
> kinds of internal APIs and many of which were moved to an appropriate
> package. This is a follow-up clean up that moves the shared secrets
> and JavaXXXAccess interfaces to jdk.internal.access package.
> 2. add a wrapper class jdk.internal.misc.FileSystemOption to expose
> sun.nio.fs.ExtendedOptions for com.sun.nio.file to access
> This eliminates the qualified exports of sun.nio.fs to jdk.unsupported.
> 3. Refactor the implementation of sun.misc.Unsafe::invokeCleaner
> to jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe.
> This eliminates the qualified exports of jdk.internal.ref and
> to jdk.unsupported.
> Webrev:
> The change is straight forward although quite many files are modified.
> Majority of the changes is import statement change or test @modules
> change due to the rename.
> I ran hs-tier1-3 and jdk-tier1-3 tests.
> We considered the alternative to define a wrapper class for everything
> that jdk.unsupported module depends on in a dedicated package
> e.g. jdk.internal.unsupported.  It would need a wrapper for Unsafe,
> Signal, SignalHandler and ExtendedOptions.  It means that it would
> have 3 classes of each - two similar/duplicated implementations
> (one in sun.misc and one in jdk.internal.unsupported) and one
> in jdk.internal.misc ([1] is the prototype).  Only a limited number
> of files are touched but I think the proposed approach is cleaner.
> Thanks
> Mandy
> [1]

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list