On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:44:02AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > + if (WIFSIGNALED(s)) {
> > + if (WTERMSIG(s) == SIGTRAP) {
> > + FAIL("SIGTRAP received");
> > + } else {
> > + PASS();
> > +
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:56:23PM +, Adam Litke wrote:
> Sonny Rao discovered a bug which affects powerpc machines. If the stack
> is allowed to grow into a segment that has been converted over to huge
> pages, current kernels will try to instantiate normal pages into a huge
> page-only segme
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:20:03AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 17:18 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > Second, there's the fact that we never demote hugepage segments back
> > to normal pages. That was a deliberate decision to keep things
> > simple, incidentally, not simply an o
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:56:23PM +, Adam Litke wrote:
> + b = mmap(0, hpage_size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
> + if (b != MAP_FAILED) {
> + munmap(b, hpage_size);
> + } else
> + FAIL("mmap");
> +
> + if ((pid = fork()) < 0)
> +
Sonny Rao discovered a bug which affects powerpc machines. If the stack
is allowed to grow into a segment that has been converted over to huge
pages, current kernels will try to instantiate normal pages into a huge
page-only segment. This test case reproduces this behavior for 32bit
and 64bit bin
On 23.01.2007 [13:47:07 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 12:47 -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> > Here ye' here ye'
> Get your S-o-b lines here!
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Cen
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 12:47 -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> Here ye' here ye'
Get your S-o-b lines here!
Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> diff --git a/elflink.c b/elflink.c
> index 6b260c9..6316563 100644
> --- a/elflink.c
> +++ b/elflink.c
> @@ -464,6 +464,32 @@ static int find_numsyms
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 08:20 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Sure. I am fine with that too. Want to handle it directly or shall I
> > spin another patch?
>
> If you could spin one more, I'd appreciate it.
Here ye' here ye'
diff --git a/elflink.c b/elflink.c
index 6b260c9..6316563 100644
-
Good day,
CIA_ALIS $3, 75
VAL_LIUM $1, 30
VIA_AGRA $3, 35
AMB_BIEN $2, 90
SO_MMA $1, 15
http://www.22rx*com ( Important! Replace "*" with "." )
--
Damn! said Mr. Weasleys voice. What on earth did they want to block
up the fireplace for?
Theyve got an electric fire, Harry explained.
--
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:10:40AM -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 09:43:48AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 03:42:50PM -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 02:08:30PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:57 -0500, Sonn
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 17:18 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> Second, there's the fact that we never demote hugepage segments back
> to normal pages. That was a deliberate decision to keep things
> simple, incidentally, not simply an oversight. I guess it would help
> in this case and shouldn't be tha
On 23.01.2007 [09:57:01 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 16:20 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 22.01.2007 [17:08:34 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> > > The current extracopysize detection algorithm does not include weak
> > > objects in the copy window. These are symbols mark
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 16:20 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 22.01.2007 [17:08:34 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> > The current extracopysize detection algorithm does not include weak
> > objects in the copy window. These are symbols marked with 'W' and 'V'
> > in nm output. These can in fact b
13 matches
Mail list logo
