* Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2008 04:33:26 Subrata Modak wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 09:21 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
> > > Subrata,
> > > When you added these test cases. What version of kernel did you
> > > validate them with?
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Th
Subrata Modak wrote:
> Thanks Vijay for working hard to resend workouts in multiple cycles. I
> would test this on some real NUMA machine. I may be late in replying to
> you, but it will definitely get through.
OK.
> Meanwhile, would you also want to explore some ways to contribute to
> LTP ?
Su
On Saturday 12 July 2008 04:33:26 Subrata Modak wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 09:21 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
> > Subrata,
> > When you added these test cases. What version of kernel did you
> > validate them with?
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> This is recently added to LTP. This tests cfs scheduler. Initia
Thank you Yamamoto San. Sorry for the delay in replying. I have tested
this on my system and everything seems working fine with these tests.
Please see below the results on my machine:
io_destroy011 PASS : expected failure - returned value = -22 :
Invalid argument
<<>>
tag=io_destroy01 stim
Dear Hisashi Hashimoto San,
Thank you for writing back to us. We are delighted to colloborate on all
fronts to make Linux testing better. My comments embedded in the
following lines.
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 13:53 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Subrata,
>
> Sorry for long time no reply.
> We h
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 09:21 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
> Subrata,
> When you added these test cases. What version of kernel did you
> validate them with?
Hi Jeff,
This is recently added to LTP. This tests cfs scheduler. Initially
written by Rusty, this was later modified by others.
Rusty,
Mike,
Would you like to comment on this. I remember we had lots of discussion
on this in our mailing list.
Regards--
Subrata
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 07:59 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Someone has to have seen this already, but just in case...
>
> LTP fails to build on systems for which /bin/s
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 07:47 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Please apply this patch (in place of, not on top of the earlier
> version). It eliminates the potential for many false negatives.
>
> thanks,
> -serge
>
> 1. Use cap_compare to compare capability sets instead of
> comparing the far les
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Jeff Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Subrata Modak
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 15:45 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> There should not be a
Hi,
Thanks Stephen and Subrata.
Best regards,
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 12:42 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 09:08 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 17:53 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen, Sergei & David,
> > >
> > > Can you kindly provide rev
Please apply this patch (in place of, not on top of the earlier
version). It eliminates the potential for many false negatives.
thanks,
-serge
1. Use cap_compare to compare capability sets instead of
comparing the far less reliable text representations.
2. pI' tests were failing bc I started
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Subrata Modak
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 15:45 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
> [...]
>> There should not be a failure for Build/Install when Kernel is >=
>> 2.6.22, when this syscall was introduced. May b
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Subrata Modak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 15:45 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
[...]
> There should not be a failure for Build/Install when Kernel is >=
> 2.6.22, when this syscall was introduced. May be we need to check out
> why it fa
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 11:59 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:10:25PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Jeff for testing them out. I also did a thorough testing. Thanks
> > Matt for providing those patches. Here are my observations below:
> >
>
> Thanks for applyin
Hi Jeff,
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 15:45 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
> Subrata,
> It looks like this is a new test to LTP.
Yes it is.
> Re:[LTP] [ANNOUNCE] The Linux Test Project has been Released for JUNE 2008
>
> 17) Log Message:
> utimensat() syscall was introduced from linux-2.6.22 onwar
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:10:25PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>
> Thanks Jeff for testing them out. I also did a thorough testing. Thanks
> Matt for providing those patches. Here are my observations below:
>
Thanks for applying them.
I've attached another patch that I forgot to send last time.
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 09:29 -0400, Jeff Burke wrote:
> Subrata,
> I have applied and tested 4 out of the 6 patches that are attached.
> Comments in line.
Thanks Jeff for testing them out. I also did a thorough testing. Thanks
Matt for providing those patches. Here are my observations below:
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 09:08 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 17:53 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > Hi Stephen, Sergei & David,
> >
> > Can you kindly provide review comments for this LTP-SELinux patch from
> > Ramon.
>
> I don't test on RHEL 4, so I can't speak to how well it
Have added timeout as input to racer.sh so that after timeout the test can
end.
The earlier way of terminating Ctrl+c has been maintained.
This is the patch for the modification.
diff -rupN racer_new/racer.sh racer/racer.sh
--- racer_new/racer.sh2008-07-11 13:04:03.0 +0530
+++ racer
19 matches
Mail list logo
