lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CA+icZUXuUswsriQL_FEJC-r57WqOVVtDfhzfM9LB5kj=ZLWS8A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:52:02 +0100 From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com> To: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, "Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 00/30] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com> wrote: > On 01/10/2013 09:46 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> Hi Dave, >> >> I am using here Ubuntu/precise AMD64 as a WUBI-installed system. >> >> Not sure if WUBI [1] is a good test-candidate. >> >> [ /boot/grub/grub.cfg ] >> ... >> set root=(loop0) >> linux /boot/vmlinuz-3.8.0-rc2-9-iniza-generic >> root=UUID=001AADA61AAD9964 loop=/ubuntu/disks/root.disk ro >> ... >> >> Poops, I did it (not again) but for the first time to test your >> loop-patchset on top of Linux v3.8-rc2 plus some important other stuff >> (see patches/ dir in attached tarball). >> >> As I did not know how to test it in a meaningful way I just run the >> "lite" test-script from LTP [2]. >> Please, have a look at the ERRORs and failures. > > I'd really like to know if these same testcases fail without my > patchset. I'm going to play with ltp on loop-mounted filesystems, but I > don't intend to play with WUBI at all. > I am preparing now two kernels against Linux v3.8-rc3 (as your patchset applies cleany) with 2 important patches which I need here (1. mei: no proper reboot and 2. (S)ATA fix). I will attach two tarballs for each kernel-setup and run LTP "lite" again (tarballs will include the results). > I'd be interested if my patchset introduces regressions, but not so much > if the same testcases fail previously. > Hmm, regressions is always good to test. As a "customer" aka tester I want to see any benefit means for most power-users: Do I get some speedups? That's the main background of my askings. As said here I am running Ubuntu as a WUBI-installation. This system is predestinated for testing loop improvements. So again and no sorry: How can I test reliable speed improvements? I remember linux-fs/linux-xfs folks have a tool could be named "xfstests" (note2myself: more coffee!). Any hints for testing appreciated! - Sedat - >> $ egrep -i 'error|fail' >> for-dkleikamp/tests/runltplite-results_loop-experimental.txt | grep -v >> -i expected | wc -l >> 210 >> >> In good old German tradition I have collected some interesting stuff >> in the attached tarball ;-). >> If something is missing - blame me. >> Don't hesitate to ask (I have your patchset for a while on my radar). >> >> Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> - Sedat - >> >> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WubiGuide >> [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/ltp/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists