The KSM developer tells us that we should wait 3~5 increments of the
/sys/kernel/mm/ksm/full_scans before checking ksm* testcases's results.
Otherwise, there may be some stuck pages that cause the testing failed.
Signed-off-by: Han Pingtian
---
testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c | 29 +
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:25:54PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Han Pingtian wrote:
> > The KSM developer tell us that we should wait 3~5 increments of the
> > /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/full_scans before checking ksm* testcases's results.
> > Otherwise, there may be so
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:46 PM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> What flavour of glibc/kernel are you testing there, it seems that it
>> behaves a little different than mine. Here I have glibc-2.11.
>
> I am using Ubuntu 10.10 with the kernel and glibc versions listed below:
> Kernel: 2.6.35-25-generic #44-U
Hi,
> What flavour of glibc/kernel are you testing there, it seems that it
> behaves a little different than mine. Here I have glibc-2.11.
I am using Ubuntu 10.10 with the kernel and glibc versions listed below:
Kernel: 2.6.35-25-generic #44-Ubuntu SMP
Glibc: glibc 2.12.1
Here, as root, I can
On Feb 14, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
Hmm I see the problem now. However as a root, I could read and run files
with just an exec flag, at least here. I suppose the test works here by
some saved-id magick. I'll look deeper into this.
>>>
>>> I think I've foun
Hi!
> > > Hmm I see the problem now. However as a root, I could read and run files
> > > with just an exec flag, at least here. I suppose the test works here by
> > > some saved-id magick. I'll look deeper into this.
> > >
> >
> > I think I've found the cause. The wait() funcion returns -1 if exe
Hi!
> >> > In this case, I partially agree with you. It is true in the case of
> >> > binary files. However, We need 'read' and 'exec'
> >> > for script files and these testcases deals with script files too.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmm I see the problem now. However as a root, I could read and run files
Hi!
> > > I have checked your patch and it solves the number conversion (octal<->
> > > decimal) issues. Thank you for that.
> > > However, the file permission issues are still valid. Please find the test
> > > execution log with this mail.
> > >
> > > >But then 001 is right to exec by other wh
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
>> > I have checked your patch and it solves the number conversion (octal<->
>> > decimal) issues. Thank you for that.
>> > However, the file permission issues are still valid. Please find the test
>> > execution log with this mail.
>>
Hi!
> > I have checked your patch and it solves the number conversion (octal<->
> > decimal) issues. Thank you for that.
> > However, the file permission issues are still valid. Please find the test
> > execution log with this mail.
> >
> > >But then 001 is right to exec by other which should w
Hi,
This one is a trivial fix for the compilation warnings in 'tools/rand_lines.c'
Signed-off-by: Maxin John
diff --git a/tools/rand_lines.c b/tools/rand_lines.c
index e1b2d0a..e2c3bb9 100644
--- a/tools/rand_lines.c
+++ b/tools/rand_lines.c
@@ -99,6 +99,7 @@
***
Nah. Yank it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> The top level Makefile have set executable flag. It seems that this came
> in as a side effect from some commit. Is this really needed for
> anything?
>
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chru...@suse.cz
>
> --
Hi!
> I have checked your patch and it solves the number conversion (octal<->
> decimal) issues. Thank you for that.
> However, the file permission issues are still valid. Please find the test
> execution log with this mail.
>
> >But then 001 is right to exec by other which should work.
> >
Hi!
The top level Makefile have set executable flag. It seems that this came
in as a side effect from some commit. Is this really needed for
anything?
--
Cyril Hrubis
chru...@suse.cz
--
The ultimate all-in-one performanc
Hi,
I have checked your patch and it solves the number conversion (octal<->
decimal) issues. Thank you for that.
However, the file permission issues are still valid. Please find the test
execution log with this mail.
>But then 001 is right to exec by other which should work.
> 010 is
Hi!
> pthread_attr_t object should be initialized before using it.
That seems not to be necessary, at least not here. Did you get randomly
looking stacksizes without this patch as a result?
The problem with this testcase is expecting that the thread gets exactly
the stack size that is defined in
Hi!
> > On the preliminary analysis of this failure, I came to know that the
> > reason was due to insufficient file permissions provided in the
> > "runtests/fs_perms_simple" . To execute a script file, 'user', 'group', or
> > 'others' should have 'read' and 'execute' permissions.
> > Based on
Hi!
> On the preliminary analysis of this failure, I came to know that the reason
> was due to insufficient file permissions provided in the
> "runtests/fs_perms_simple" . To execute a script file, 'user', 'group', or
> 'others' should have 'read' and 'execute' permissions.
> Based on that, I ha
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 23:50 +0800, Caspar Zhang wrote:
> Hi all, seems that we don't have a new stable release for long time, any
> plan to release one?
Shubham will probably release one at the End of February 2011 :-)
Regards--
Subrata
>
> Thanks,
> Caspar
---
On Monday 14 February 2011 09:10 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> sendmail is no longer on the same server where git pushes are sent to:
>
> Counting objects: 3, done.
> Delta compression using up to 8 threads.
> Compressing objects: 100% (2/2), done.
> Writing objects: 100% (2/2), 245 bytes, done.
Hi Garrett,
Any response？
The INSTALL file say flex can be obtained here:
-
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/flex/flex/flex-2.5.33/flex-2.5.33.tar.bz2
Are you mean the flex version is sure flex-2.5.33+？
> Would you like to apply this patch?
>
> "%option nolex-compat" make the glo
Hi,
A number of LTP Filesystem Permission testcases failed when I executed the
"fs_perms" tests in my PC.
Please find the execution log below.
-
root@maxin:/opt/ltp#
Hi Garrett,
Garrett Cooper said the following on 2011-2-14 14:23:
> How about this version instead? There were issues with the
The two "TEST_ERRNO" should be replaced with "errno" in this version,
If not, the version will fail.
--
Best Regards,
Peng Haitao
> previous version of the file w
23 matches
Mail list logo
