On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 10:42:27PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> Kingsley Cheung writes:
> >
> > To solve the problem I applied a patch similar to the one you posted
> > back in July and it fixed the problem. Could we consider putting this
> > patch into relayfs? Its similar to the one posted i
Kingsley Cheung writes:
>
> To solve the problem I applied a patch similar to the one you posted
> back in July and it fixed the problem. Could we consider putting this
> patch into relayfs? Its similar to the one posted in July 2004, except
> it also moves clear_readers() before INIT_WORK i
Kingsley Cheung wrote:
> To solve the problem I applied a patch similar to the one you posted
> back in July and it fixed the problem. Could we consider putting this
> patch into relayfs? Its similar to the one posted in July 2004, except
> it also moves clear_readers() before INIT_WORK in relay_
Hi Tom,
I've been stress testing a module that uses relayfs on a custom built
2.6 kernel with relayfs patches in it. This test simply loaded and
unloaded the module while a script loaded the system with forks of
'ls' in the background. It was conducted on a dual 3.00GHz Xeon box
(I couldn't repr
4 matches
Mail list logo