On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:30:14 -0800
Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Cristian Greco wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> this should fix a regression in kill05.
> >>
> >> Why did tst_resm/tst_exit get replaced by perror/exit in
On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:52 PM, CAI Qian wrote:
> Those days, there just too many tests and testing projects for kernel like
> LTP, autotest, xfstests and so on. Why not have somewhere to collabrate and
> then to extract the best?
Part of the problem is that every single testing project has differen
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Cristian Greco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this should fix a regression in kill05.
>
> Why did tst_resm/tst_exit get replaced by perror/exit in 84f181fd?
Because it's a child process and child processes should _not_ use
libltp for sanity and to avoid introducing determini
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Cristian Greco wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this should fix a regression in kill05.
>>
>> Why did tst_resm/tst_exit get replaced by perror/exit in 84f181fd?
>
> Because it's a child process and child processes shoul
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Cristian Greco wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this should fix a regression for fstat05 on some architectures.
Committed -- thanks!
-Garrett
--
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You
Th
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Caspar Zhang wrote:
> On 03/04/2011 06:13 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> I've committed a more extensive patch. Please test it out and let me
>> know how it goes -- thanks!
>> -Garrett
>
> Hi Garrett, compile error occurs in this patch, here is a fix.
Sorry for the e
Hi,
this should fix a regression in kill05.
Why did tst_resm/tst_exit get replaced by perror/exit in 84f181fd?
Signed-off-by: Cristian Greco
---
testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/kill05.c |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/kill/ki
On 03/04/2011 06:13 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I've committed a more extensive patch. Please test it out and let me
> know how it goes -- thanks!
> -Garrett
Hi Garrett, compile error occurs in this patch, here is a fix.
--
Quality Engineer (Kernel) in
Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co., R&D Branch
Hi,
this should fix a regression for fstat05 on some architectures.
Signed-off-by: Cristian Greco
---
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fstat/fstat05.c |4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fstat/fstat05.c
b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fsta
Hi!
> This is a re-submission of an earlier patch to add an ext4 testcase to
> ltp. I've cleaned up the patch according to the stlye guide and attached
> a git friendly patch. This is my first time doing one of these, so please
> let me know if I left anything out. Thx!
Sorry for the delay.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Han Pingtian wrote:
> This is a reproducer of CVE-2011-0999, which fixed by mainline commit
> a7d6e4ecdb7648478ddec76d30d87d03d6e22b31:
>
> "Transparent hugepages can only be created if rmap is fully
> functional. So we must prevent hugepages to be created while
>
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Han Pingtian wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:16:58PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Han Pingtian wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Updated as required. Please review. Thanks.
>>
>> close should be under TEST_CLEANUP. Other than th
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
>> Hi!
>> There are more than two libraries in testcases/kernel/mem/ that results
>> in Makefile confusion. One of the sideeffects is that internal libraries
>> libmem.a and liboom.a gets
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> There are more than two libraries in testcases/kernel/mem/ that results
> in Makefile confusion. One of the sideeffects is that internal libraries
> libmem.a and liboom.a gets installed.
>
> Garrett do you care to have a look on this?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Caspar Zhang wrote:
> On 03/04/2011 05:27 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Caspar Zhang wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2011 04:37 PM, Cristian Greco wrote:
wouldn't it be better to call tst_resm() with TCONF instead of TINFO,
for the sak
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Peng Haitao wrote:
> Garrett Cooper said the following on 2011-2-25 0:46:
>>> There are two processes in cases, and the test need run from child process,
>>> so parent process should exit after invoking cleanup().
>>
>> Looks fine. I'll commit it tonight if no one
On 03/04/2011 05:27 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Caspar Zhang wrote:
>> On 03/04/2011 04:37 PM, Cristian Greco wrote:
>>> wouldn't it be better to call tst_resm() with TCONF instead of TINFO,
>>> for the sake of consistency?
>>
>> Agree. Updated to v3:
>>
>> These t
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Caspar Zhang wrote:
> Oh... I sent the wrong v2 patch. here is the correct PATCH v2. Sorry for
> noise...
Seems sane -- thanks!
-Garrett
--
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Caspar Zhang wrote:
> On 01/21/2011 04:28 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Cristian Greco wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > [ please keep CC as I'm not currently subscribed to the list ]
>>> >
>>> > please find attached a small fix to check
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Caspar Zhang wrote:
> On 03/04/2011 04:37 PM, Cristian Greco wrote:
>> wouldn't it be better to call tst_resm() with TCONF instead of TINFO,
>> for the sake of consistency?
>
> Agree. Updated to v3:
>
> These tests contain x86 asm so that they wouldn't be run on x8
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:21 AM, CAI Qian wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't see what would be gained by merging parts of the LTP into
>> kernel tree. As I said before, this would probably lead to splitting of
>> the forces (and not that we have a lot to split anyway). LTP already has
>> directory called t
On 03/04/2011 04:37 PM, Cristian Greco wrote:
> wouldn't it be better to call tst_resm() with TCONF instead of TINFO,
> for the sake of consistency?
Agree. Updated to v3:
These tests contain x86 asm so that they wouldn't be run on x86_64
machine, but run into a simple main() functions instead. Ho
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:51:20 +0800
Caspar Zhang wrote:
> Similar to getdents0[34] and getdents0[234]_64, so I updated the patch
> to v2.
>
> These tests contain x86 asm so that they wouldn't be run on x86_64
> machine, but run into a simple main() functions instead. However all of
> them are mis
> Well, I don't see what would be gained by merging parts of the LTP into
> kernel tree. As I said before, this would probably lead to splitting of
> the forces (and not that we have a lot to split anyway). LTP already has
> directory called testcases/kernel/, LTP is in the git repository and we
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
