-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 208
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8298413: [s390] CPUInfoTest fails due to uppercase feature string #2449
8298413: [s390] CPUInfoTest fails due to uppercase feature string #2449
Conversation
👋 Welcome back amitkumar! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@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:
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
Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the 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 |
This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit. |
I have done testing on s390x and test is passing on JDK17u-dev without any issue. I guess if I backport openjdk/jdk#8142 then it could be @RealLucy would you please review this one and look if I should backport the PR I mentioned above ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
|
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. |
/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. |
@offamitkumar |
Thanks Lutz for review. /integrate |
@offamitkumar |
/sponsor |
Going to push as commit e974897.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@RealLucy @offamitkumar Pushed as commit e974897. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
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
Issue
Reviewers
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