On 07/23/2015 10:17 AM, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 07/23/2015 08:17 AM, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 07/22/2015 03:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
I didn't kno
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 07/23/2015 08:17 AM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >
> >>On 07/22/2015 03:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >
> >I didn't know that lib
On 07/23/2015 08:17 AM, Eric B Munson wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 07/22/2015 03:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests. I wonder if that makes
tools/testing/selftests/vm's huget
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 07/22/2015 03:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests. I wonder if that makes
> >>>tools/testing/selftests/vm's hugetlbfstest harmful?
> >>
> >>
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> fwiw, I've been trying to push people towards this for a while. Ie:
>
> commit 15610c86fa83ff778eb80d3cfaa71d6acceb628a
> Author: Davidlohr Bueso
> Date: Wed Sep 11 14:21:48 2013 -0700
>
> hugepage: mention libhugetlbfs in doc
>
> Exp
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:18 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 07/22/2015 03:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests. I wonder if that makes
> >>> tools/testing/selftests/vm's hugetlbfste
On 07/22/2015 03:30 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests. I wonder if that makes
tools/testing/selftests/vm's hugetlbfstest harmful?
Why harmful? Redundant, maybe(?).
The presence of the in-kernel tes
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:50 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:34:34 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > selftests is a pretty scrappy place. It
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:34:34 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > selftests is a pretty scrappy place. It's partly a dumping ground for
> > > things so useful test code doesn't j
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:34:34 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > selftests is a pretty scrappy place. It's partly a dumping ground for
> > things so useful test code doesn't just get lost and bitrotted. Partly
> > a framework so people who
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> selftests is a pretty scrappy place. It's partly a dumping ground for
> things so useful test code doesn't just get lost and bitrotted. Partly
> a framework so people who add features can easily test them. Partly to
> provide tools to arch
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:19:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has tests. I wonder if that makes
> > tools/testing/selftests/vm's hugetlbfstest harmful?
>
> Why harmful? Redundant, maybe(?).
The presence of the in-kernel tests will cause people to add stuff
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz
> wrote:
>
> > As suggested during the RFC process, tests have been proposed to
> > libhugetlbfs as described at:
> > http://librelist.com/browser//libhugetlbfs/2015/6/25/patch-tests-add-tes
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz wrote:
> As suggested during the RFC process, tests have been proposed to
> libhugetlbfs as described at:
> http://librelist.com/browser//libhugetlbfs/2015/6/25/patch-tests-add-tests-for-fallocate-system-call/
I didn't know that libhugetlbfs has te
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Changes in this revision address the minor comment and function name
> issues brought up by Naoya Horiguchi. Patch set is also rebased on
> current "mmotm/since-4.1". This revision does not introduce any
> functional changes.
>
> As sugg
Changes in this revision address the minor comment and function name
issues brought up by Naoya Horiguchi. Patch set is also rebased on
current "mmotm/since-4.1". This revision does not introduce any
functional changes.
As suggested during the RFC process, tests have been proposed to
libhugetlbf
16 matches
Mail list logo
