No problem with adding a GPL header, looks good to me.
- k
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Subrata Modak wrote:
> I think this can be a very useful patch. Kumar, i just want to add the
> following license statement before i check this to cvs:
>
> /***
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 14:17 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I'm trying to figure what the appropriate result is for some tests.
>
> For example, if we run on NFS, the kernel doesn't currently support
> swap over NFS thus should a swapon test return TCONF or TBROK if the
> test detects that its bein
I think this can be a very useful patch. Kumar, i just want to add the
following license statement before i check this to cvs:
/**/
/* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
*/
/* it under th
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 10:38 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Subrata Modak wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 08:20 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> On Nov 14, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Subrata Modak wrote:
> >>
> >>> Would you like to check BrenoĊ Patch submitted on for nfs mounted
>
Hi,
> Masatake Y,
> Kindly let me know if you need any assistance for writing these test
> cases.
> --Subrata--
Thanks. After some studying about fadvise64 in glibc and linux,
I get a remark that I should write tests for posix_fadvise first.
Generally applications use posix_fadvise64, don't use
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I'm trying to figure what the appropriate result is for some tests.
>
> For example, if we run on NFS, the kernel doesn't currently support
> swap over NFS thus should a swapon test return TCONF or TBROK if the
> test detects that its being run on a NFS fs?
Thanks for this Patch. And i have added this to CVS.
--Subrata--
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 13:54 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> I think this can be a very useful patch. Kumar, i just want to add the
> following license statement before i check this to cvs:
>
> /
