From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:28:42 -0400 From: Jeff Dike Subject: Re: [RFC] madvise(MADV_TRUNCATE) Message-ID: <20051028182842.GA8514@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <1130366995.23729.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051028034616.GA14511@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <43624F82.6080003@us.ibm.com> <200510281910.39646.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510281910.39646.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Blaisorblade Cc: Badari Pulavarty , Hugh Dickins , akpm@osdl.org, andrea@suse.de, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, linux-mm List-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 07:10:39PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > It may be good when the patch is already really polished, IMHO, but not for > verifying what's really wrong. > > Also, you can gdb an UML running with the patch, to verify what's going on. > > But I wouldn't suggest testing this with nested UMLs - using that means > looking for trouble. I think he's looking for test cases, not debugging this inside a UML. If he's debugging on hardware, then nesting UMLs doesn't come into the picture. Jeff -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org