Revert of [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker

Revert of [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker (patchset #5 id:100001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2678733002/ )

Reason for revert:
Checking for power use regressions.

Original issue's description:
> [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker
> 
> This patch mojofies the following two messages:
>   ServiceWorkerMsg_ActivateEvent
>   ServiceWorkerHostMsg_ActivateEventFinished
> 
> BUG=629701
> TEST=content_unittests
> 
> Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2678733002
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#451513}
> Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/64975bc58e6b041ade1cfe2edb431896548845f3

TBR=leon.han@intel.com,shimazu@chromium.org,falken@chromium.org,peter@chromium.org,tsepez@chromium.org,xiaofeng.zhang@intel.com
# Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed more than 1 days ago.
BUG=629701

[shrike, 2017-03-02 19:46:01]

Created Revert of [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker

[shrike, 2017-03-02 20:06:31]

BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview to create a
patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests with/without
it.

[Tom Sepez, 2017-03-02 20:32:19]

On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview to create a
> patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests
with/without
> it.

Can't git do this for you? e.g.
   git revert 64975bc58

[shrike, 2017-03-02 21:35:49]

On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview to create a
> > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests
> with/without
> > it.
> 
> Can't git do this for you? e.g.
>    git revert 64975bc58

Thank you - I will use that in the future.

[shimazu, 2017-03-03 03:32:14]

On 2017/03/02 21:35:49, shrike wrote:
> On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview to create
a
> > > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests
> > with/without
> > > it.
> > 
> > Can't git do this for you? e.g.
> >    git revert 64975bc58
> 
> Thank you - I will use that in the future.

Do you have a tracking issue of the power use regression in crbug?
I assume this won't cause increase of power consumption, so I'd like to see the
discussion.

[shimazu, 2017-03-06 02:15:17]

On 2017/03/03 03:32:14, shimazu wrote:
> On 2017/03/02 21:35:49, shrike wrote:
> > On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > > > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview to
create
> a
> > > > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests
> > > with/without
> > > > it.
> > > 
> > > Can't git do this for you? e.g.
> > >    git revert 64975bc58
> > 
> > Thank you - I will use that in the future.
> 
> Do you have a tracking issue of the power use regression in crbug?
> I assume this won't cause increase of power consumption, so I'd like to see
the
> discussion.

Tracking bug: https://crbug.com/698343

[xiaofengzhang, 2017-03-06 07:56:58]

On 2017/03/06 02:15:17, shimazu wrote:
> On 2017/03/03 03:32:14, shimazu wrote:
> > On 2017/03/02 21:35:49, shrike wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > > > > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview to
> create
> > a
> > > > > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests
> > > > with/without
> > > > > it.
> > > > 
> > > > Can't git do this for you? e.g.
> > > >    git revert 64975bc58
> > > 
> > > Thank you - I will use that in the future.
> > 
> > Do you have a tracking issue of the power use regression in crbug?
> > I assume this won't cause increase of power consumption, so I'd like to see
> the
> > discussion.
> 
> Tracking bug: https://crbug.com/698343

@shimazu
Can I continue commit cl before this issue has conclusion? Thanks.

[shimazu, 2017-03-06 08:14:56]

On 2017/03/06 07:56:58, xiaofengzhang wrote:
> On 2017/03/06 02:15:17, shimazu wrote:
> > On 2017/03/03 03:32:14, shimazu wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/02 21:35:49, shrike wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > > > > > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview to
> > create
> > > a
> > > > > > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests
> > > > > with/without
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can't git do this for you? e.g.
> > > > >    git revert 64975bc58
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you - I will use that in the future.
> > > 
> > > Do you have a tracking issue of the power use regression in crbug?
> > > I assume this won't cause increase of power consumption, so I'd like to
see
> > the
> > > discussion.
> > 
> > Tracking bug: https://crbug.com/698343
> 
> @shimazu
> Can I continue commit cl before this issue has conclusion? Thanks.

I don't think this should be committed because now we don't have good
explanation of why the regression is possible to be caused by this patch.
We have already landed several similar patches to use mojo, and if this patch is
causing the regression, the same thing would happen on the others.
For example, FetchEvent is much more frequent than ActivateEvent. 

shrike@: How critical is this issue? I think we can revert this patch after
reaching consensus if it's just P3 as you triaged the crbug ticket.

[shrike, 2017-03-06 17:00:11]

On 2017/03/06 08:14:56, shimazu wrote:
> On 2017/03/06 07:56:58, xiaofengzhang wrote:
> > On 2017/03/06 02:15:17, shimazu wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/03 03:32:14, shimazu wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/02 21:35:49, shrike wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > > > > > On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > > > > > > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview
to
> > > create
> > > > a
> > > > > > > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some tests
> > > > > > with/without
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can't git do this for you? e.g.
> > > > > >    git revert 64975bc58
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you - I will use that in the future.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have a tracking issue of the power use regression in crbug?
> > > > I assume this won't cause increase of power consumption, so I'd like to
> see
> > > the
> > > > discussion.
> > > 
> > > Tracking bug: https://crbug.com/698343
> > 
> > @shimazu
> > Can I continue commit cl before this issue has conclusion? Thanks.
> 
> I don't think this should be committed because now we don't have good
> explanation of why the regression is possible to be caused by this patch.
> We have already landed several similar patches to use mojo, and if this patch
is
> causing the regression, the same thing would happen on the others.
> For example, FetchEvent is much more frequent than ActivateEvent. 
> 
> shrike@: How critical is this issue? I think we can revert this patch after
> reaching consensus if it's just P3 as you triaged the crbug ticket.

I don't believe the original patch was the cause of the regression. This revert
patch I created never landed, so nothing needs to be done with it except to
close it out.

[shrike, 2017-03-06 17:00:22]

Description was changed from

==========
Revert of [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker (patchset #5
id:100001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2678733002/ )

Reason for revert:
Checking for power use regressions.

Original issue's description:
> [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker
> 
> This patch mojofies the following two messages:
>   ServiceWorkerMsg_ActivateEvent
>   ServiceWorkerHostMsg_ActivateEventFinished
> 
> BUG=629701
> TEST=content_unittests
> 
> Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2678733002
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#451513}
> Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/64975bc58e6b041ade1cfe2edb43...

TBR=leon.han@intel.com,shimazu@chromium.org,falken@chromium.org,peter@chromiu...
# Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed more than 1 days ago.
BUG=629701
==========

to

==========
Revert of [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker (patchset #5
id:100001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/2678733002/ )

Reason for revert:
Checking for power use regressions.

Original issue's description:
> [ServiceWorker] Mojofy ActivateEvent of Service Worker
> 
> This patch mojofies the following two messages:
>   ServiceWorkerMsg_ActivateEvent
>   ServiceWorkerHostMsg_ActivateEventFinished
> 
> BUG=629701
> TEST=content_unittests
> 
> Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2678733002
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#451513}
> Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/64975bc58e6b041ade1cfe2edb43...

TBR=leon.han@intel.com,shimazu@chromium.org,falken@chromium.org,peter@chromiu...
# Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed more than 1 days ago.
BUG=629701
==========

[xiaofengzhang, 2017-03-08 06:58:08]

On 2017/03/06 17:00:11, shrike wrote:
> On 2017/03/06 08:14:56, shimazu wrote:
> > On 2017/03/06 07:56:58, xiaofengzhang wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/06 02:15:17, shimazu wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/03 03:32:14, shimazu wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/02 21:35:49, shrike wrote:
> > > > > > On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > > > > > > > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used codereview
> to
> > > > create
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some
tests
> > > > > > > with/without
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Can't git do this for you? e.g.
> > > > > > >    git revert 64975bc58
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you - I will use that in the future.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you have a tracking issue of the power use regression in crbug?
> > > > > I assume this won't cause increase of power consumption, so I'd like
to
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > Tracking bug: https://crbug.com/698343
> > > 
> > > @shimazu
> > > Can I continue commit cl before this issue has conclusion? Thanks.
> > 
> > I don't think this should be committed because now we don't have good
> > explanation of why the regression is possible to be caused by this patch.
> > We have already landed several similar patches to use mojo, and if this
patch
> is
> > causing the regression, the same thing would happen on the others.
> > For example, FetchEvent is much more frequent than ActivateEvent. 
> > 
> > shrike@: How critical is this issue? I think we can revert this patch after
> > reaching consensus if it's just P3 as you triaged the crbug ticket.
> 
> I don't believe the original patch was the cause of the regression. This
revert
> patch I created never landed, so nothing needs to be done with it except to
> close it out.

So this cl is just for your verification? And I can continue to commit other
mojo cl?

[shimazu, 2017-03-08 07:16:16]

On 2017/03/08 06:58:08, xiaofengzhang wrote:
> On 2017/03/06 17:00:11, shrike wrote:
> > On 2017/03/06 08:14:56, shimazu wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/06 07:56:58, xiaofengzhang wrote:
> > > > On 2017/03/06 02:15:17, shimazu wrote:
> > > > > On 2017/03/03 03:32:14, shimazu wrote:
> > > > > > On 2017/03/02 21:35:49, shrike wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2017/03/02 20:32:19, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2017/03/02 20:06:31, shrike wrote:
> > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm not actually reverting this cl - I just used
codereview
> > to
> > > > > create
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > patch so that I can back the change out locally and run some
> tests
> > > > > > > > with/without
> > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Can't git do this for you? e.g.
> > > > > > > >    git revert 64975bc58
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thank you - I will use that in the future.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you have a tracking issue of the power use regression in crbug?
> > > > > > I assume this won't cause increase of power consumption, so I'd like
> to
> > > see
> > > > > the
> > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tracking bug: https://crbug.com/698343
> > > > 
> > > > @shimazu
> > > > Can I continue commit cl before this issue has conclusion? Thanks.
> > > 
> > > I don't think this should be committed because now we don't have good
> > > explanation of why the regression is possible to be caused by this patch.
> > > We have already landed several similar patches to use mojo, and if this
> patch
> > is
> > > causing the regression, the same thing would happen on the others.
> > > For example, FetchEvent is much more frequent than ActivateEvent. 
> > > 
> > > shrike@: How critical is this issue? I think we can revert this patch
after
> > > reaching consensus if it's just P3 as you triaged the crbug ticket.
> > 
> > I don't believe the original patch was the cause of the regression. This
> revert
> > patch I created never landed, so nothing needs to be done with it except to
> > close it out.
> 
> So this cl is just for your verification? And I can continue to commit other
> mojo cl?

Ah, sorry. In your previous comment, you meant you wanted to commit another CL
before this CL, right? 
I think it's no problem. Please go ahead:)

[shrike, 2017-03-08 16:48:14]

On 2017/03/08 06:58:08, xiaofengzhang wrote:
> So this cl is just for your verification? And I can continue to commit other
> mojo cl?

That is correct.