On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Garrett Cooper writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Shi Weihua wrote:
>>> at 2010-2-25 9:18, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Shi Weihua wrote:
> at 2010-2-22 15:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Silesh C V wrote:
> On 3/5/10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Silesh C V wrote:
>>> On 3/4/10, Rishikesh K Rajak wrote:
>Rishi,
>Can you test this patch on the machine on which the tests got stuck
>earlier?
Ye
On 3/5/10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Silesh C V wrote:
>> On 3/4/10, Rishikesh K Rajak wrote:
Rishi,
>>>
Can you test this patch on the machine on which the tests got stuck
earlier?
>>>
>>> Yes i tested and found that, it is failing.
>>
>> It is supposed
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Silesh C V wrote:
> On 3/4/10, Rishikesh K Rajak wrote:
>>>Rishi,
>>
>>>Can you test this patch on the machine on which the tests got stuck
>>>earlier?
>>
>> Yes i tested and found that, it is failing.
>
> It is supposed to fail :) . What we wanted was a way to co
On 3/4/10, Rishikesh K Rajak wrote:
>>Rishi,
>
>>Can you test this patch on the machine on which the tests got stuck
>>earlier?
>
> Yes i tested and found that, it is failing.
It is supposed to fail :) . What we wanted was a way to come out of
the tests if the
alarm fails to ring.
>
> [r...@x3
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Shi Weihua wrote:
> at 2010-2-25 9:18, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Shi Weihua wrote:
>>> at 2010-2-22 15:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Ok.. one last thing.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Shi Weihua wrote:
> at 2010-
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Shi Weihua wrote:
> at 2010-2-25 9:18, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Shi Weihua wrote:
>>> at 2010-2-22 15:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Ok.. one last thing.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Shi Weihua wrote:
> at 2010-
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 05:32:39PM +0530, Sudhir Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:10:31PM +0530, Mohamed Naufal wrote:
> > On 1 March 2010 11:58, Rishikesh K Rajak
> > wrote:
>
> The patch looks fair enough.
> Naufel, good job!
> I avoided review and comments as I wanted you to learn th
Hi Shwetabh,
> There is one possible problem with the current solution provided by Maxin.
> The patch takes care
> only of cpuhotplug tests. However, judging by the number of files that are
> missing in /opt/ltp/testcases,
> it is quite possible that many other tests might have been broken. So,
>
>Rishi,
>Can you test this patch on the machine on which the tests got stuck
>earlier?
Yes i tested and found that, it is failing.
[r...@x335a rtc]# ./rtc-test /dev/rtc
rtc01 0 TINFO : RTC READ TEST:
rtc01 1 TPASS : RTC READ TEST Passed
rtc01 0 TINFO : Current Date/ti
at 2010-2-25 9:18, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Shi Weihua wrote:
>> at 2010-2-22 15:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> Ok.. one last thing.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Shi Weihua wrote:
at 2010-2-18 12:25, Rishikesh K Rajak wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2
at 2010-3-3 0:19, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:46 AM, Rishikesh K Rajak
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:28:25PM +0800, Shi Weihua wrote:
> There's a lot of noise in the patch because of if-else behavior in
> trying to determine the mail app. That's why I didn't co
12 matches
Mail list logo
