On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:45:25AM +0100, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 06:10:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:11:07AM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 23:55 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > On Thu, 23 May 2013, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > > When user interrupts ongoing transfers the dmatest may end up with > > > > > console > > > > > lockup, oops, or data mismatch. This patch prevents user to abort any > > > > > ongoing > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > Personally I would be against such a change. What about interrupting > > > > the > > > > test with rmmod? > > > > Is it still possible after this your patch or not? If not > > > > - this doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Why don't we just fix those > > > > bugs, that you're describing? > > > > > > The behaviour of the module is returned to the same page by this patch > > > as it was before (w/o debugfs). > > > > > > The user can interrupt tests by rmmod, but it will take time up to > > > timeout. > > > > > > I appreciate if you can do a deeper analysis of what happened in > > > case Will reported. > > > > Did this query hold up the application of this patch? I'd really like to see > > *something* in 3.10, otherwise dmatest will be broken. > I though we had some data corruption on subsequent tests, or was that > different > one?
We ended up with something that worked in the end: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/23/196 Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
