Re: Call for testing: OpenJDK 11 on Arm64

On 1/3/22 21:30, Greg Lewis wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 10:23:43AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 1/1/22 20:24, Greg Lewis wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> [Adding Mikael and Kurt]
>>>
>>> I'm not subscribed to freebsd-arm, so please include me in any replies
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:59:02AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> Is anyone testing OpenJDK on FreeBSD/Arrm64?
>>>
>>> Yes, aarch64 is a fully supported architecture for the BSD java port and
>>> OpenJDK 11 is supported on both FreeBSD/aarch64 and OpenBSD/aarch64.
>>>
>>>> We're about to commit a great big patch for MacOS/AArch64, and it would be
>>>> nice if someone with a FreeBSD/Arm64 system could kick the tyres to make sure
>>>> we didn't break anything.
>>>
>>> Is this based on the MacOS/aarch64 port introduced in OpenJDK 17?  If so,
>>> yes the patch will break things but we have an idea of how to resolve
>>> that breakage since we had to do it for OpenJDK 17.
>>
>> OK. It'd be nice to have that committed.
> 
> It would be!  However my understanding is that this is conditional on BSD
> passing the JCK tests and committing to future maintenance.  That ends up
> being difficult to manage on volunteer time.

I see. I don't think that there's any link between whether a downstream
build passes the JCK and and whether a patch for that build may be pushed,
though. And there's no contract (explicit or implied) that requires the
author of a patch to commit to maintaining it long term. I mean, of course
it would be nice.

>> Ideally:
>>
>> I'd like all BSD fixes to be in the 11u source tree, so that everything in
>> there builds on all BSDs. I don't want to approve a patch that breaks BSDs,
>> or any other system. I think it would be better for OpenJDK committers to be
>> able to see BSD changes.
>>
>> And I'd like to say "Hi, thanks!" to BSD maintainers.  :-)
> 
> I appreciate your desire to have all the BSD changes upstream, because that
> would certainly make things easier for us.  I think that is unlikely
> without someone to sponsor the changes through though.
> 
> Even this heads up is useful though!  I'd be happy to discuss further about
> how to get changes upstreamed if you have thoughts.
> 
> I'll try to complete updating our repo this evening with the latest upstream
> and then look at whether the change in your pull request applies and what
> we'll need to do for the merge.

Sure. I've been thinking about how this might get done, and it depends on
how extensive the changes are. If it's just things like missing #include
lines, that's easy. If it's more complicated than that then there's some
thinking to do.

But this discussion is productive, because I wasn't aware that there were
downstream ports to think about. I guess it should have been obvious.
Also, we've made contact, which is useful.

I see that there are FreeBSD AWS images, which will at least give me a
way to try things. When you test, please let me know which version you
use, and I could kick the tyres.

-- 
Andrew Haley  (he/him)
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671