On 2/20/19 5:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Today, proc_do_large_bitmap() truncates a large write input buffer
> to PAGE_SIZE - 1, which may result in misparsed numbers at the
> (truncated) end of the buffer. Further, it fails to notify the caller
> that the buffer was truncated, so it
Add test to build up bitmap range string and test the bitmap
proc handler.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
V2: set rc=0 for test success
however this still fails indeterminately for me. Debugging, if I
save off the test write string and the read string, re-writing it to
the handler works fine
On 2/21/19 12:43 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Add test to build up bitmap range string and test the bitmap
> proc handler.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
> ---
>
> nb: test_modprobe & load_req_mod fail for me before we ever
> get to this test, but commenting them o
Add test to build up bitmap range string and test the bitmap
proc handler.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
nb: test_modprobe & load_req_mod fail for me before we ever
get to this test, but commenting them out, my test runs as expected.
I'm new to this script, so careful review woul
On 2/21/19 11:52 AM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:47:49AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 2/21/19 9:18 AM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:35:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> Here's a pretty hack
On 2/21/19 9:18 AM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:35:04PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Here's a pretty hacky test script to test this code via
>> ip_local_reserved_ports
>
> Thanks Eric!
>
> So /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports i
Add a test node for proc_do_large_bitmap to the test_sysctl.c
infrastructure. It's sized the same as the one existing user.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
diff --git a/lib/test_sysctl.c b/lib/test_sysctl.c
index 3dd801c1c85b..1263be4ebfaf 100644
--- a/lib/test_sysctl.c
+++ b/lib/test_sys
Here's a pretty hacky test script to test this code via
ip_local_reserved_ports
-
#!/bin/bash
# Randomly construct well-formed (sequential, non-overlapping)
# input for ip_local_reserved_ports, feed it to the sysctl,
# then read it back and check for differences.
# Port range to use
PORT_ST
k the caller to come back for
more.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
index ba4d9e85feb8..970a96659809 100644
--- a/kernel/sysctl.c
+++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
@@ -3089,9 +3089,13 @@ int proc_do_large_bitmap(struct ctl_table *table, int
write,
David Mack wrote:
> Then I got very, very lucky, since I have successfully rebooted
> 2.6.23.1-23.fc8 four times (zero panics) and this is the first time a
> 2.6.23 kernel has not panicked on me in months.
>
> This does not fill me with confidence in the theory that the panics I've
> been seeing a
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:33:15AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Hm... running 2.6.23-6.fc8, I've been through 30+ reboot cycles without
>> a problem. Before, I'd oops every 5 or so times I booted...
>>
>> I now have another NIC in the box
Herbert Xu wrote:
> David Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I understand the message Dave Jones sent yesterday, the patch you
>> mention *was* applied to the e100 driver in 2.6.23-6.fc8?
>
> Nope, he applied a different one which doesn't have the crucial
> part to disable NAPI polls before reg
Eric/David, the Fedora 8 RPM version 2.6.23-6.fc8 will have this if you
want to give it a shot too. It'll be at
http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/f7.92/ when it's done
building in an hour or so.
Dave
Thanks, I'll give it a whirl this evening. I put a new net card in that
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 04:35 +, Al Viro wrote:
I would even say 10 function calls deep to allocate file blocks
is overkill, but 22 it just astronomically bad.
Especially since a large part is due to cxfs...
-
it's a bit sad to see XFS this crippled in linux due to a
14 matches
Mail list logo
