On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 16:08 -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
>> Looks like I should grab these testcases for the sake of due diligence
>> (not to say I intend to alter maintenance style from primarily review,
>> approval, and bugfixing, not that I've been doing as much of any of those
>> as I should). To w
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 16:08 -0800, Bill Irwin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:13:29PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> > Hey. While testing 2.6.21-rc2 with libhugetlbfs, the shm-fork test case
> > causes the kernel to oops. To reproduce: Execute 'make check' in the
> > latest libhugetlbfs source o
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:13:29PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote:
> Hey. While testing 2.6.21-rc2 with libhugetlbfs, the shm-fork test case
> causes the kernel to oops. To reproduce: Execute 'make check' in the
> latest libhugetlbfs source on a 2.6.21-rc2 kernel with 100 huge pages
> allocated. Using
Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey. While testing 2.6.21-rc2 with libhugetlbfs, the shm-fork test case
> causes the kernel to oops. To reproduce: Execute 'make check' in the
> latest libhugetlbfs source on a 2.6.21-rc2 kernel with 100 huge pages
> allocated. Using fewer huge pages wi
Hey. While testing 2.6.21-rc2 with libhugetlbfs, the shm-fork test case
causes the kernel to oops. To reproduce: Execute 'make check' in the
latest libhugetlbfs source on a 2.6.21-rc2 kernel with 100 huge pages
allocated. Using fewer huge pages will likely also trigger the oops.
Libhugetlbfs ca
5 matches
Mail list logo