8374232: Comment cleanup in diagnosticCommand.cpp

[kevinjwalls]

Comment-only cleanup, didn't spot during previous review.

Trivial, no code affected.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8374232: Comment cleanup in diagnosticCommand.cpp (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

• Chris Plummer (@plummercj - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28962/head:pull/28962
$ git checkout pull/28962

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/28962
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/28962/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 28962

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 28962

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28962.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back kevinw! 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]

@kevinjwalls 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:

8374232: Comment cleanup in diagnosticCommand.cpp

Reviewed-by: cjplummer

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 4 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 8d80bac: 8374296: Comment clean up in os_linux.cpp
• be2ac08: 8373967: [macos] User interactions with List do not trigger ItemEvent after programmatic change
• f1c5041: 8374200: jdk/internal/platform/cgroup/TestCgroupMetrics.java fails with common prefix metrics
• ... and 1 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e1d81c0946364a266a006481a8fbbac24c7e6c6a...master

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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[openjdk]

@kevinjwalls The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot-runtime
• serviceability

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 01: Full - Incremental (7d2bab91)
• 00: Full (d2f0eff1)

[plummercj]

I kind a liked the "first argument, second argument" approach a bit more.

// First argument specifies on which interfaces a command is made available.
// Optional second argument specifies if hidden from jcmd help. Default is false.

[kevinjwalls]

OK thanks.
I was thinking as all the usages here only use one argument, the numbering seems irrelevant.
The flags/mask of sources is maybe unusual enough that it's worth keeping the comment.

I almost didn't even mention the hidden flag, you go and find the constructor DCmdFactoryImpl(uint32_t flags, bool hidden = false) when clarification is needed.
Any thoughts on if it's worth mentioning?

[plummercj]

Yeah, before adding my comment I had to first go digging for that bool hidden = false reference. At first it was unclear to me what the comment was even trying to describe. I think if you wanted to delete the comment that would be ok. I don't think we have a comment like this is any of the other numerous sections that register dcmds.

[kevinjwalls]

Yes, so removing the obscure hidden flag from the comment, it can just be:

void DCmd::register_dcmds() {
// Registration of the diagnostic commands.
// Argument specifies on which interfaces a command is made available.

But as it is called register_dcmds, commenting that we do "Registration of the diagnostic commands." on the next line is obvious/unnecessary.

Updated!

[kevinjwalls]

Thanks Chris!

[kevinjwalls]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 61cb6d7.
Since your change was applied there have been 4 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 8d80bac: 8374296: Comment clean up in os_linux.cpp
• be2ac08: 8373967: [macos] User interactions with List do not trigger ItemEvent after programmatic change
• f1c5041: 8374200: jdk/internal/platform/cgroup/TestCgroupMetrics.java fails with common prefix metrics
• ... and 1 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e1d81c0946364a266a006481a8fbbac24c7e6c6a...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@kevinjwalls Pushed as commit 61cb6d7.

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