Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem

Nadia Derbey wrote: Matt Helsley wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote: snip +#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */ + It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum maximum ;). A better name might better document

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem

Nadia Derbey wrote: Matt Helsley wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote: snip +#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */ + It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum maximum ;). A better name might

Re: [LTP] New tests in LTP

On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 10:30 +0100, Aurélien Charbon wrote: Hi, I have run the whole test suite after having applied this little patch. There should not be any difference between the original test run and a run post patch applied since there are no new code in runtest scripts to

Re: [LTP] update filecaps test

On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:53 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: Hi Andrew, The original verify_caps_exec.c test in the filecaps test was written before libcap had file capabilities support. Faced with implementing 64-bit support in that ugly mess in order to properly test your per-process