xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel

To: "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>, "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel
From: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:13:15 -0700
Cc: "xfs-oss" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20070808025615.GH52011508@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcfZZ8/+CsI7MncITCidZk+cUHULrAAClkhQ
Thread-topic: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel
> From: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> David Chinner
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:56 PM
> To: Eric Sandeen
> Cc: xfs-oss
> Subject: Re: qa 166 failure on f8 kernel
...
> mmap dirties entire pages. page size differs between platforms -
> ia64 = 16k, x86 = 4k - so the size of the extent allocated is
> different. Guess what platform I wrote the test on and use as my
> primary platform?
> 
> The output needs better filtering, methinks.

Could the test be changed so the output is pagesize independent
rather than filtering the output?  Or maybe the test should
use a buffer size that's the LCM of all supported page sizes.

I'm not actually familiar with the test, so forgive me if I'm
way off...

                                        -Alex


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>