On 11/18/2011 10:29 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Lai Jiangshan ([email protected]) wrote: >> It seems that the testing patches have a strange problem, please wait >> before merge it. > > Hi Lai, > > I'm still waiting to hear from you before pulling the testing patches. > One thought that occurs to me is that we should probably create a second > hash table test program alongside with the existing one. > > The test program currently in the tree can also be used as an example of > how to use the hash table. The modifications you bring are interesting > for testing subtle corner-cases, but these transform the test program in > a synthetic workload that cannot be used as a usage example. > > So, what are your thoughts about creating a second hash table test > program ? It can very well be derived from a copy of test_urcu_hash, no > problem there. We could event rename the current test_urcu_hash into > example_urcu_hash.c ?
Hi, Mathieu, Did you miss the memory-management patches, you can merge them first. Testing patches are not urgent/important, you can use original test-suit. Testing patches need to be carefully reworked. The strange problem is not a bug: The testing results sometimes(5%) are unstable. But I can't find the reason. Thanks, Lai. _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
