Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*testcase\s+011\s+trips\s+and\s+ASSERT\s+in\s+x86

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*testcase\s+011\s+trips\s+and\s+ASSERT\s+in\s+x86_64\s+too\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. testcase 011 trips and ASSERT in x86_64 too (score: 1): Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:06:06 -0800; Hello, A while back I reported that the test case 011 trips an ASSERT on POWER architecture, but not in x86_64. I started comparing the code and quickly realized that the problem is _not_ arch specif; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00160.html (9,781 bytes)
2. Re: testcase 011 trips and ASSERT in x86_64 too (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:48:10 +1100; As i said before, the debug check is known to be racy. Having it trigger is not necessarily a sign of a problem. I have only ever tripped it once since the way the check operates was changed. There's; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00164.html (12,365 bytes)
3. Re: testcase 011 trips and ASSERT in x86_64 too (score: 1): Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:29:32 -0700; Thanks for your response, Dave. <snip> Oh, may be I misunderstood. In your earlier reply you mentioned that you wanted to know if the problem is consistently reproducible. Since it was, I went on to; /archives/xfs/2011-03/msg00169.html (11,112 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]