On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 11:37 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:14:36PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote:
> > First, waiting a few seconds for the standard FC-6 daemons to wake up.
> > Then, Xemacs and Firefox. Not tested on SMP.
>
> Is it failslab or fail_page_alloc ?
Usually failsla
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:14:36PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote:
> First, waiting a few seconds for the standard FC-6 daemons to wake up.
> Then, Xemacs and Firefox. Not tested on SMP.
Is it failslab or fail_page_alloc ?
> > This doesn't maximize code coverage. It makes fault-injector reject
> > any
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:18 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:51:30PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote:
> > Upon keying in
> > echo 1 >probability
> > echo 3 >verbose
> > echo -1 >times
> > a few dozen stacks are printk'ed, then system responsiveness
> > recovers to normal.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:51:30PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote:
> Allow all non-unique call stacks, as judged by pushed sequence of EIPs,
> to be to be ignored as failure candidates.
>
> Upon keying in
> echo 1 >probability
> echo 3 >verbose
> echo -1 >times
> a few dozen stacks are
Allow all non-unique call stacks, as judged by pushed sequence of EIPs,
to be to be ignored as failure candidates.
Upon keying in
echo 1 >probability
echo 3 >verbose
echo -1 >times
a few dozen stacks are printk'ed, then system responsiveness
recovers to normal. Similarly,
5 matches
Mail list logo
