[11u] RFR[M]: 8250902: Implement MD5 Intrinsics on x86

Vladimir Kozlov vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com
Sun Aug 9 02:28:42 UTC 2020

On 8/8/20 10:30 AM, Ludovic Henry wrote:
> Hi Andrew, Vladimir,
>> It's too early for that: changes are supposed to bake in JDK head for
>> a while. Also, since it's an enhancement rather than a bug fix we'd
>> need to have the discussion. I would say it's marginal whether
>> something like this should be back ported.
>> Usually we backport only bugs fixes to keep LTS (11u) release stable.
> It makes perfect sense. I'm happy to wait longer, and follow up on that thread later on to check if there is any appetite to get it backported.
>> You need also point if backport applied cleanly or you have to make changes.
> The code conflicts were trivial as the infrastructure for intrinsics didn't change much since 11 (and even 8).
> Conflicts:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~luhenry/8250902-11u/webrev.00/conflict.diff
>> Changes should be backported separately to keep track - do not combine changes.
>> But it is okay to push both changesets together (especially if followup changes fixed first).
> Sorry I do not fully understand. Is it ok in this case to combine both changes into a single changeset, since the second one is a followup that fixes the first one? Or should I still make 2 changeset, but have them pushed together?

It is not okay to combine changes into a single changeset.

You need to make 2 (in this case) separate changesets but push them together. You can push them separately too but there 
is a chance that second push may miss a new build which would includes only first push.

Also if a changeset applies cleanly you can use "hg export" and "hg import" commands - no need to do new commit.

If changeset does not apply cleanly you need to send RFR for backport as you correctly did.


> Thank you,
> Ludovic

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list