Module Name:src
Committed By: mrg
Date: Sat Oct 5 22:06:29 UTC 2019
Modified Files:
src/tests/fs/common: fstest_nfs.c
Log Message:
sprintf->snprintf
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -u -r1.10 -r1.11 src/tests/fs/common/fstest_nfs.c
Please note that diffs ar
Module Name:src
Committed By: mrg
Date: Sat Oct 5 22:06:29 UTC 2019
Modified Files:
src/tests/fs/common: fstest_nfs.c
Log Message:
sprintf->snprintf
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -u -r1.10 -r1.11 src/tests/fs/common/fstest_nfs.c
Please note that diffs ar
Module Name:src
Committed By: brad
Date: Fri Aug 30 23:45:13 UTC 2019
Modified Files:
src/tests/fs/common: fstest_lfs.c
Log Message:
The cleaner is compiled into the ATF test harness for the LFS
filesystem tests. Use the new -J option to pass the raw device into
the clean
Module Name:src
Committed By: brad
Date: Fri Aug 30 23:45:13 UTC 2019
Modified Files:
src/tests/fs/common: fstest_lfs.c
Log Message:
The cleaner is compiled into the ATF test harness for the LFS
filesystem tests. Use the new -J option to pass the raw device into
the clean
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 07:43:06PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>
> > > The zfs tests are failing when run as an unprivileged user in
> > > thread_create() ... because default limit for threads (160) is too
> > > low ! When run as root, the limit value (2500) seems to be high enough.
> >
> > So sh
> > The zfs tests are failing when run as an unprivileged user in
> > thread_create() ... because default limit for threads (160) is too
> > low ! When run as root, the limit value (2500) seems to be high enough.
>
> So should we increase the default limits? It's always a tough call to
> set lim
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> That make a 80 CPUs host require a thread limit value of 814
> (=261+7*79) to be able to run this test.
Sounds like a serious test case
- Jukka.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 02:57:27PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Nicolas Joly writes:
>
> > The zfs tests are failing when run as an unprivileged user in
> > thread_create() ... because default limit for threads (160) is too
> > low ! When run as root, the limit value (2500) seems to be high eno
Nicolas Joly writes:
> The zfs tests are failing when run as an unprivileged user in
> thread_create() ... because default limit for threads (160) is too
> low ! When run as root, the limit value (2500) seems to be high enough.
So should we increase the default limits? It's always a tough call
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 05:25:00AM +, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: jmmv
> Date: Sat Mar 16 05:25:00 UTC 2013
>
> Modified Files:
> src/tests/fs/common: h_fsmacros.h
>
> Log Message:
> Mark the zfs tests as requiring root.
>
> This is wrong.
hi,
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:53:28AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > > (one nfsro test currently fails with EROFS vs. EACCES. Hopefully
> > > someone else can debate the correct errno)
> >
> > the NFS ACCESS procedure, which is used for open time permission checks,
> > does not have
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:53:28AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > (one nfsro test currently fails with EROFS vs. EACCES. Hopefully
> > someone else can debate the correct errno)
>
> the NFS ACCESS procedure, which is used for open time permission checks,
> does not have a way to distingu
hi,
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pooka
> Date: Fri Dec 31 18:16:41 UTC 2010
>
> Modified Files:
> src/tests/fs/common: h_fsmacros.h
>
> Log Message:
> Introduce r/o tests. They do two mounts: the first one is r/w and
> runs a generator which primes the fs. The second one i
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 07:45:26PM +, David Laight wrote:
> [...]
> >From what I remember of the NFS protocol, the following 'rules' applied:
> 1) If you export part of a filesystem, you export all of the filesystem.
that's probably trye
> 2) If you give anyone access, you give everyone acces
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 05:26:29AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 05:22:32AM +, David Holland wrote:
> > It would also be worthwhile to test that nfsd doesn't allow writing
> > via read-only handles, but that's a different issue and will require a
> > different test fr
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 05:22:32AM +, David Holland wrote:
> It would also be worthwhile to test that nfsd doesn't allow writing
> via read-only handles, but that's a different issue and will require a
> different test framework that sends raw nfs packets.
Hmm, no, maybe I misunderstood. An
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 03:02:00PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > It is possible that netbsd's nfs server does additional checks but
> > they are expensive to do on every nfs request.
>
> That's good advise to someone who is configuring an nfs server.
...which is to say, it's not relevant to
On Fri Dec 31 2010 at 19:45:26 +, David Laight wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 06:16:41PM +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: pooka
> > Date: Fri Dec 31 18:16:41 UTC 2010
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/tests/fs/common: h_fsmacros.h
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 06:16:41PM +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pooka
> Date: Fri Dec 31 18:16:41 UTC 2010
>
> Modified Files:
> src/tests/fs/common: h_fsmacros.h
>
> Log Message:
> Introduce r/o tests. They do two mounts: the first one is r/w and
19 matches
Mail list logo
