On 11.10.2006 [11:29:05 +1000], David Gibson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:28:55AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > On 10.10.2006 [15:36:47 +1000], David Gibson wrote: > > > I think commit d00d5d32b213b933770ac89ce0559c72996a43fc should be > > > reverted. It adds an ERROR() when hugetlbfs_find_path() is unable to > > > find a hugepage mount. > > > > This was from me. > > Yes. > > > > While we do print ERROR()s for the other failure cases, I don't > > > believe it is appropriate here. The other cases are really "shouldn't > > > happen" cases - basic operations which should always work fine. In > > > contrast simply not finding a hugetlb mount is a perfectly legitimate > > > situation - the application using this function should test the return > > > value from hugetlbfs_find_path() and print its own error if > > > necessary. Otherwise a program which is able to operate both with and > > > without hugepages available can't use this function to quietly test > > > which situation is the case. > > > > Yes, I agree, to be honest. I think I had hoped that > > hugetlbfs_find_path() would not be exported, but it is (now that we have > > versioning it will be for all of 1.*, at least). I am ok with reverting > > this commit. > > Why don't you think find_path() should be exported? It seems a > reasonable function for the "explicit hugepage usage convenience > library" function of libhugetlbfs.
Sorry, not that it isn't reasonable to export, just that I previously was hoping we wouldn't have an ABI to maintain, now that we have versioning support. But it's ok. > > Adam? > > > > > Case in point, the 'empty_mounts' testcase can't easily be made quiet > > > as it should be with this patch in place - the error message is > > > printed in addition to the 'PASS' message. > > > > > > Incidentally have people been running the testsuite routinely? For me > > > on current mainline it now produces many errors, and crashes the > > > machine (POWER5 LPAR). > > > > We have been running them as regularly as possible. Is this related to > > your recent post to LKML? Or an independent one? > > The crash is related to my lkml post, yes. I'm also getting testcase > failures on a bunch of the share cases, though, and nearly all the > 32-bit versions of the elflink tests. FWIW, everything passes on x86_64. So this would appear to be ppc-specific breakage? I'm bringing up a G5 to do some testing and see if I can't help track down the issues. Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
