On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 07:42:27AM +1000, tridge@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi Paul, > > These probabilities are way off. They assume that whatever interaction > happens in XP has infinite memory. The testing I've done indicates > that the memory for this interaction is very small (maybe 3 or 4? it's > hard to know precisely). Good to know! I will rework assuming that the memory is 4, let me know if you learn more. > I've also confirmed this with lots of testing. If the probability was > 39% for any directory size then I would have found it. This new information will likely reduce the predicted probability of bluescreen by several orders of magnitude for large directories. Not that much effect for small directories, but not a real issue given how low the probabilities are to begin with. > In all my testing I did not once produce a XP crash with the full > patch. To produce the XP crash I needed to have a reduced version of > the patch with less randomness. Well, let's see if I can produce a reasonably realistic model. :-) (I knew I should have gotten more sleep last night!!!) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
