libhugetlbfs-2.17]# make
Makefile:101: *** "Unrecognized architecture (ppc64)". Stop.
ppc64 is still reported by uname -m, I'm not sure who thought powerpc64
would be.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Managing the Performance of Cloud-
/* Try to match a preN/rcN version */
start = end + 1;
if (*end == '-') {
if (*start == 'r' && *(start + 1) == 'c')
start += 2;
else if (*start == 'p' &&
*(start + 1) == 'r' &&
The current code treats everything after the x.y.z- as a pre/rc level
version, which isn't right for the following example, at least:
3.11.10-301.fc20.ppc64p7
which puts 301 as ver->pre. Ignore all non "-rc" or "-pre" suffixes.
Signed-off-by: Nish
malloc testcase pass
again.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index ccd9a3f..145b53d 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ INSTALL = install
LDFLAGS += -Wl,-z,noexecstack -ldl
CFLAGS ?= -O2 -g
CFLAGS += -Wall -fPIC
-CPPFLAGS += -D_
t; > so, in what form.
> >
>
> At the time of the call, I was somewhere over the atlantic wishing the
> sugar-filled crazed children beside me would keep quiet for 10
> minutes. What was the outcome of the call?
It was postponed until more people were available post-OLS.
Th
On 04.08.2006 [17:07:42 -0500], Bill Buros wrote:
> I installed fedora 5 on an x86-64bit system, got preview 3, installed
> that and am trying to link stream.c with gcc. But it's not finding
> /usr/local/bin/ld.hugetlbfs
I assume you weren't using the Fedora Core packages?
Adam, would it be po
Description: Recalculate the number of free hugepages before using it
has a parameter in run_tests.sh. The number may change due to the
sharing tests or other things running in the system. This is to work
around both cases.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -
morecore's comments indicate that we will failover to smallpage malloc
if we run out of hugepages at runtime, but that is not the case. Modify
one comment and remove another to not confuse anyone.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/morecore.c b/morec
On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >morecore's comments indicate that we will failover to smallpage malloc
> >if we run out of hugepages at runtime, but that is not the case. Modify
> >one comment and remove ano
On 16.08.2006 [16:45:22 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Adam Litke wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:12 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >> On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >>> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >>>> morecore
On 16.08.2006 [21:23:59 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 16.08.2006 [16:45:22 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >> Adam Litke wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:12 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >>>> On 16.0
On 09.08.2006 [15:55:52 -0500], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 12:01 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Description: Recalculate the number of free hugepages before using it
> > has a parameter in run_tests.sh. The number may change due to the
> > sharing
Two more functions that can be marked static. Compile- and run-tested.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/elflink.c b/elflink.c
index 86ef7ae..f8c1ac6 100644
--- a/elflink.c
+++ b/elflink.c
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static int prepare_segment(struct
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/debug.c b/debug.c
index 90fa5dc..d561a14 100644
--- a/debug.c
+++ b/debug.c
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int __hugetlbfs_verbose = 1;
static int initialized;
-void __hugetlbfs_init_debug(void)
+static void __hugetlbfs_init_debug(
I believe initalized is being used to not recurse into the
__hugetlbfs_init_debug() function, but it's never being set in the
function, so I'm not sure it's have the desired effect.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/debug.c b/debug.c
i
Remove code that is #if 0'd away from hugeutils.c.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/hugeutils.c b/hugeutils.c
index cb49ed6..9249628 100644
--- a/hugeutils.c
+++ b/hugeutils.c
@@ -54,38 +54,6 @@ int sha
This is my first try at versioning any library, does it make sense?
Description: Add GNU versioning via a version script to libhugetlbfs.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 88d9775..a349892 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@
munmap(p, newsize);
return NULL;
}
- munlock(p, newsize);
-#endif
mapsize += newsize;
}
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
On 22.08.2006 [19:08:40 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is my attempt at reinstating the mlocking guarantee for morecore.
> The issue previously was that we would fault in hugepages on the current
> node only, leading to terrible NUMA performance. Instead, we
On top of my previous patch to add library versioning to libhugetlbfs,
here is one that actually does something :/ VERSION { } is not needed
within the script itself and we do have 4 global symbols, which need to
be visible for the tests.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTEC
Rather than call the same function twice, use the cached value.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/hugeutils.c b/hugeutils.c
index 9249628..922d477 100644
--- a/hugeutils.c
+++ b/hugeutils.c
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ int hugetlbfs_unlinked_fd(void)
Currently, morecore is enabled, if HUGETLB_MORECORE is set at all in the
environment, even if its value is "no". That is counterintuitive, as
none of the other environment variables work that way. Make
HUGETLB_MORECORE act like HUGETLB_ELFMAP.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EM
it could be a macro at the top, or something?),
this looks reasonable.
> Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
On 29.08.2006 [13:58:18 -0500], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 08:44 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Currently, morecore is enabled, if HUGETLB_MORECORE is set at all in the
> > environment, even if its value is "no". That is counterintuitive, as
> >
On 23.08.2006 [23:11:14 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 22.08.2006 [19:08:40 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is my attempt at reinstating the mlocking guarantee for
> > morecore. The issue previously was that we would fault in hugepa
On 05.09.2006 [17:25:55 -0500], Steve Fox wrote:
> Trying this again as Nish found a grammatical error :)
No S-o-b line though :(
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
I found the dearth of comments in morecore.c to be quite troublesome
while debugging a related kernel bug. I hope these are accurate.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -urpN a/morecore.c b/morecore.c
--- a/morecore.c2006-09-06 11:34:18.0 -0700
-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -urpN a/morecore.c b/morecore.c
--- a/morecore.c2006-09-06 12:00:12.0 -0700
+++ b/morecore.c2006-09-06 12:02:02.0 -0700
@@ -101,6 +101,36 @@ static void *hugetlbfs_morecore(ptrdiff_
DEBUG("he
On 06.09.2006 [12:07:15 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> We currently skip over negative increments, but in a potentially
> incorrect manner, as we still move our heap around. If both newsize and
> increment are negative, then we check to see if we can free up at least
> a full
On 06.09.2006 [14:34:53 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 06.09.2006 [12:07:15 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > We currently skip over negative increments, but in a potentially
> > incorrect manner, as we still move our heap around. If both newsize and
> > increme
ppc64 has issues with multiple pagesizes in the same VMA. We currently
force the hugepages to be mapped for malloc at the next TB address, but
that is only necessary if the address is above the TB boundary. Fix that
up. Tested at run- and compile-time.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EM
Fixup our morecore implementation so that we deal with glibc trimming
correctly. A 0 increment is a request for the current heaptop and a
negative increment simply adjusts the heaptop (the return value is
actually ignored by glibc).
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ested, on top of my patches for trimming and
vaddr_granularity().
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -urpN libhugetlbfs-20060911/morecore.c libhugetlbfs-20060911-dev/morecore.c
--- libhugetlbfs-20060911/morecore.c2006-09-07 14:26:48.0 +
+++ libhugetlb
E: Why do we need it? When there is no .bss section, we don't
>pad the .data section. */
> - . = ALIGN(. != 0 ? 32 / 8 : 1);
> +. = ALIGN(256*1024*1024);
I'm guessing the answer is yes to the above, then, since it's 1024 here
and in the other ALIGNs.
Thanks,
LPAR).
We have been running them as regularly as possible. Is this related to
your recent post to LKML? Or an independent one?
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take
t done.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chan
On 10.10.2006 [11:28:55 -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
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
> > > reverte
On 12.10.2006 [11:12:53 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 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:
> > > > Incidentall
On 12.10.2006 [11:41:12 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 12.10.2006 [11:12:53 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > 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 10.1
On 12.10.2006 [12:46:13 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 12.10.2006 [11:41:12 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 12.10.2006 [11:12:53 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 11.10.2006 [11:29:05 +1000], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oc
On 13.10.2006 [13:32:52 -0500], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 12:46 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/tests/linkshare.c b/tests/linkshare.c
> > index 227af08..f3fd50e 100644
> > --- a/tests/linkshare.c
> > +++ b/tests/linkshare.c
> &
gt; which seems backwards. Surely we should be checking mlock() when the
> file was not originally locked. Is this really the intended
> behaviour.
Your concerns seem pretty valid, David.
Patches are welcome :)
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Techno
ly came up with ways to work
around issues.
Let me work up a patch that might get rid of *a lot* of code and see if
I can't test it a bit. Give me a few days, though.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PRO
king the sharing
functionality, can we defer this patch? I might end up removing a
majority of the functions that are moving.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Using
On 13.10.2006 [12:47:25 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 13.10.2006 [12:02:44 +1000], David Gibson wrote:
> > Nish, or someone else who understands the sharing implementation:
> >
> > Can you explain to me the need for the hugetlbd? i.e. why is it
> > necessary
On 14.10.2006 [12:45:49 +1000], David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:14:00PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 13.10.2006 [12:47:25 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 13.10.2006 [12:02:44 +1000], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > Nish, or so
ell defined, and I think it's pretty clear
> there's no need to SHARED map the pages if we're not going to write to
> them.
True, and I don't think Steve was trying to suggest testing more than we
normally do (even if it doesn't seem like much right now :) Just that
On 16.10.2006 [13:12:44 +1000], David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:45:44PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 11.10.2006 [13:53:18 +1000], David Gibson wrote:
> > > A couple of questions about the mlock testcase added in commit
> > > ff2f5343e4a4e
hich will try and diagnose things like
this (we have a few other common failure scenarios that we've run into
so far, iirc), when applications fail (and HUGETLB_DEBUG is set). Not
there yet, but on the horizon.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravam
o.
I'm going to review the patch today (am back from vacation now) and will
respond with (N)ACK by EOB, I hope.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Using T
so that
subsequent preparers will get valid fds's. If both opens failed, someone
else must be preparing the file right now, so we can just wait and see.
Ok, not so little, but I was being verbose. In any case, a description
of the algorithm is needed.
> + /* NB: mode is modified
On 31.10.2006 [10:26:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:26:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 30.10.2006 [15:56:43 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > Latest daemon removal path. Updated to apply clean on top of the
> > > latest changes
On 31.10.2006 [13:16:34 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:45:41PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 30.10.2006 [15:56:43 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > Latest daemon removal path. Updated to apply clean on top of the
> > > latest changes
On 31.10.2006 [13:18:18 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 04:01:54PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 31.10.2006 [10:26:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:26:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > >
On 02.11.2006 [11:52:41 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:26:12AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 31.10.2006 [13:18:18 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 04:01:54PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > >
On 08.11.2006 [13:44:16 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 06.11.2006 [11:00:03 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I've discovered this patch doesn't work on AMD64.
> > Also, the errors there made me realise that in a sense it only works
> > by acci
e sent in to do so, or revert this
commit please.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stu
(32):PASS
truncate_sigbus_versus_oom 100 (64):PASS
Beyond the known truncate_above_4G issues, these are the only tests that
fail on the G5 with 200 hugepages allocated. Should we constrain the
maximum parameter sent to this test?
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth
Fix linkshare testcase to catch the case where the sharing children are
killed by a signal. Currently, if a child segfaults, we still PASS the
test, when it clearly should be a FAIL case.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/tests/linkshare.c b/tests/links
cularly confusing when straceing
> a testcase).
> - When quiet mode isn't on, print the testname and pid at the
> beginning of each test from test_init(). This saves a few steps
> finding the pid when attaching gdb, or strace, or examining
> /proc/XX/maps.
No Signed-off-by...
Tha
On 12.11.2006 [11:18:21 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:39:40AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 03.11.2006 [11:52:26 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > Here are a pair of patches adding extra testcases for some of the
> > > kernel
On 12.11.2006 [11:19:23 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:43:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Fix linkshare testcase to catch the case where the sharing children are
> > killed by a signal. Currently, if a child segfaults, we still PASS the
&g
On 12.11.2006 [11:20:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 01:46:41PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 10.11.2006 [14:35:30 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > Two things to make debugging easier:
> > > - Use an fflush() after each ver
On 14.11.2006 [10:17:25 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:06:19AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 12.11.2006 [11:19:23 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:43:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > Fix l
On 14.11.2006 [11:11:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 04:01:01PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 14.11.2006 [10:17:25 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:06:19AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > >
Good
> to have it explained.
>
> > At least it wasn't a kernel regression ;) Please apply.
>
> Um.. aren't you the one applying things?
Sort of -- to free Adam up, I'll be staging patches in my tree, and
asking him to do periodic merges
On 02.11.2006 [11:52:41 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:26:12AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Ok. I tend to think it will get its testing fastest if we merge into
> the git tree now. Again, we can branch from 1.0.1 if we need to make
> more maintena
ntial users that I think they should go in
> hugeutils.c from the start. Other than that, looks good to me.
Can you resend with this change?
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
On 14.11.2006 [12:29:01 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 04:46:14PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 02.11.2006 [11:52:41 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:26:12AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >
> >
>
With threaded binaries, it can be quite annoying to see single line
outputs of "done", as I'm experiencing while debugging the linkshare
testcase. At a minimum, I think, since this is a DEBUG_CONT(), we should
add ellipses.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECT
453097] xB.linkshare[23838]: segfault at 2b980301fb88 rip
2ae67e48f315 rsp 7fff2c9856d0 error 4
[92773.456395] xB.linkshare[23837]: segfault at 2b980301fb88 rip
2b3e89b2f315 rsp 7fff212e7030 error 4
[92779.769836] xBDT.linkshare[23903]: segfault at 2b7604c72b40 rip
000
On 14.11.2006 [15:28:37 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 09:55 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 14.11.2006 [12:29:01 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > diff --git a/tests/run_tests.sh b/tests/run_tests.sh
> > index d0be9d1..adda47c 100755
> &g
On 14.11.2006 [12:21:36 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm hitting a brick wall debugging the linkshare segfaults I'm seeing.
>
> (These logs are from my 2-way x86_64, but I'm seeing similar issues on a G5
> (ppc64):
>
> HUGET
On 15.11.2006 [12:41:44 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 01:49:48PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 14.11.2006 [15:28:37 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 09:55 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > On 14.11.2006
On 15.11.2006 [10:41:19 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 02:33:59PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 14.11.2006 [12:21:36 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm hitting a brick wall deb
On 15.11.2006 [10:45:08 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:34:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > With threaded binaries, it can be quite annoying to see single line
> > outputs of "done", as I'm experiencing while debugging the linkshare
On 15.11.2006 [17:31:32 +], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 10:43 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:48:16AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > David,
> > >
> > > On 14.11.2006 [09:10:25 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
>
[resending due to user error on my end]
On 20.11.2006 [10:45:49 -0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 09:55 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > +rm -rf `hugetlbfs_path`/elflink-uid-`id -u`
>
> Just a note: this will break with spaces in hugetlbfs_path. E
On 27.11.2006 [11:59:47 -0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >In any case, how would you ever work around this in bash? We either
> >trust the user or we trust /proc/mounts to be sane. In both cases, if
> >they are not trustable, it's operator
I'm a little behind. I'll try and get an update to the list
soon on where we stand.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Inf
aking genuine warnings slightly less prominent.
>
> Thus, this patch alters the ARFLAGS when in non-verbose build mode to
> "rc" which turns of ar's verbosity, and also suppresses ar's
> message/warning that it is creating a new archive.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gib
On 16.11.2006 [10:50:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:09:07PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 15.11.2006 [10:41:19 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 02:33:59PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > >
On 28.11.2006 [10:41:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:21:05PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > [resending due to user error on my end]
> >
> > On 20.11.2006 [10:45:49 -0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 09:55 -0
icated. Remove the extraneous definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join Sourc
cripts apply here as well. Add explicit placement
> of these sections so ld's implicit guessing doesn't get it wrong.
>
> At least it wasn't a kernel regression ;) Please apply.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishan
down test failures easier.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influen
aking genuine warnings slightly less prominent.
>
> Thus, this patch alters the ARFLAGS when in non-verbose build mode to
> "rc" which turns of ar's verbosity, and also suppresses ar's
> message/warning that it is creating a new archive.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gib
On 12.11.2006 [11:20:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 01:46:41PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 10.11.2006 [14:35:30 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > Two things to make debugging easier:
> > > - Use an fflush() after each ver
On 28.11.2006 [13:51:28 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 28.11.2006 [10:41:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:21:05PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Huh? Setting HUGETLB_PATH should work fine. It even won't have
> > problems w
On 28.11.2006 [16:07:41 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:49 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 16.11.2006 [10:50:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:09:07PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > On 15.11.2006
icated. Remove the extraneous definition.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys
On 29.11.2006 [09:38:28 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:18:05PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 28.11.2006 [13:51:28 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 28.11.2006 [10:41:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, No
On 29.11.2006 [09:34:06 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:10:26PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 12.11.2006 [11:20:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 01:46:41PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > >
On 29.11.2006 [10:15:30 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 16.11.2006 [10:50:13 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:09:07PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > >
d Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you&#x
On 30.11.2006 [12:43:09 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:56:51PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I don't really see that failing after the first child comes back with
> > > a signal is a problem. I don't see any situation
ned-off-by: Steve Fox
Erm, error in a script? Re-send, please?
Otherwise, looks sane.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Fut
1 - 100 of 581 matches
Mail list logo
