Garrett Cooper wrote on 09/14/2010 12:43:47 PM:
> 1. It doesn't make sense why you're doing this, unless you're
> purposely trying to impose a limit to get the consumer to fail on the
> next round. What happens if you make this 0 instead?
You're right; this should be 0. I foolishly just copied t
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Scott Romanowski wrote:
> The various hugetlb tests don't check to see if they are trying to allocate
>> SHMMAX memory, nor do they try to compensate for multiple processes --
> each process will try to get half of memory, so eventually a request will
> fail.
>
> I
hi garret,
I get this when running acltest01:
tag=acl_test01 stime=1284123525
cmdline="export TCbin=$LTPROOT/testcases/bin;acl_test01"
contacts=""
analysis=exit
<<>>
10240+0 records in
10240+0 records out
10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.037594 seconds, 279 MB/s
/opt/ltp/testcases/bin/acl_test01:
Quoting ARJIT SHARMA (joyar...@gmail.com):
> hi,
> in ima testcase all the 4 testcases are failing because of error as
> "cannot mount security fs"
> Why is this error coming..please tell me.
Do you have CONFIG_SECURITYFS=y ?
-serge
-
The various hugetlb tests don't check to see if they are trying to allocate
> SHMMAX memory, nor do they try to compensate for multiple processes --
each process will try to get half of memory, so eventually a request will
fail.
I suggest adding a function to lib/system_specific_hugepages_info.c
Yes, I emailed them but I forgot to put the sign-off line. I'll re-post.
--
Scott Romanowski--
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelera
Hi,
I re-released August 2010 LTP due to some issues with the actual month
end release.Though the release contains all the changes that we have in
git till date, still i preferred to name it as AUGUST 2010 release
provided we will have our next release only at OCT 2010 end. I have
updated the foll
