On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 07:25 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote: > Subrata Modak wrote: > >>Nadia Derbey wrote: > >> > >>>Matt Helsley wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote: > >>>> > >>>><snip> > >>>> > >>>>>+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */ > >>>>>+ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum > >>>>maximum ;). A better name might better document what the test is > >>>>actually trying to do. > >>>> > >>>>One question I have is whether the unpatched test is still valuable. > >>>>Based on my limited knowledge of the test I suspect it's still a correct > >>>>test of message queues. If so, perhaps renaming the old test (so it's > >>>>not confused with a performance regression) and adding your patched > >>>>version is best? > >>>> > >>> > >>>So, here's the new patch based on Matt's points. > >>> > >>>Subrata, it has to be applied on top of the original ltp-full-20080131. > >>>Please tell me if you'd prefer one based on the merged version you've > >>>got (i.e. with my Tuesday patch applied). > > > > > > Nadia, I would prefer Patch on the top of the already merged version (on > > top of latest CVS snapshot as of today). Anyways, thanks for all these > > effort :-) > > > > --Subrata > > > > In attachment, you'll find a patch to apply on top of the patches I sent > you on Tuesday. Nadia, Thanks a ton for that. The same has been merged. Regards-- Subrata > > Regards, > Nadia _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
