Hi, Zhou. I'm on holiday now, you can ask other people to help test, if necessary. Thanks Minfei > ? 2016?3?24??12:29?Zhou, Wenjian/??? <zhouwj-fnst at cn.fujitsu.com> ??? > > Hello Minfei, > > How do these two patches work? > > -- > Thanks > Zhou > >> On 03/18/2016 01:48 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/???" wrote: >>> On 03/18/2016 12:16 PM, Minfei Huang wrote: >>>> On 03/18/16 at 10:46am, "Zhou, Wenjian/???" wrote: >>>> Hello Minfei, >>>> >>>> Since I can't produce the bug, I reviewed the patch and wrote an increment patch. >>>> Though there are some bugs in the increment patch, >>>> I wonder if the previous bug still exists with this patch. >>>> Could you help me confirm it? >>> >>> Ok. I will help verify this increasing patch. >> >> Thank you very much. >> >>>> >>>> And I have another question. >>>> Did it only occur in patch v4? >>> >>> This issue doesn't exist in v3. I have pasted the test result with >>> --num-thread 32 in that thread. >>> >>> applied makedumpfile with option -d 31 --num-threads 32 >>> real 3m3.533s >> >> Oh, then the patch in the previous mail may not work. >> >> I'm appreciated if you can also test the patch in this letter. >> >> I introduced semaphore to fix the bug in the v3. >> So I want to know if it is this which affects the result. >> The attached patch is based on v4, used to remove semaohore. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kexec mailing list >> kexec at lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > >
