On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:30:30AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-11-10 10:22, Hunt, David:
> > On 09/11/2015 17:46, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> > > Here is the log. You an see, that many tests fail just because
> > > of the missing hugetlb support. This is strange as I modified the
> > > autote
2015-11-10 10:22, Hunt, David:
> On 09/11/2015 17:46, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> > Here is the log. You an see, that many tests fail just because
> > of the missing hugetlb support. This is strange as I modified the
> > autotest_runner.py to inject "--no-huge --no-pci" options when it
> > detects ar
On 09/11/2015 17:46, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> Here is the log. You an see, that many tests fail just because
> of the missing hugetlb support. This is strange as I modified the
> autotest_runner.py to inject "--no-huge --no-pci" options when it
> detects armv7 architecture.
I think publishing the
Here is the log. You an see, that many tests fail just because
of the missing hugetlb support. This is strange as I modified the
autotest_runner.py to inject "--no-huge --no-pci" options when it
detects armv7 architecture.
Moreover, the mempool performance test does not say OK. It is marked as
Tim
Hello David,
I am working on some auto test in QEMU. My last result for ARMv7 is
following bellow. What is strange, I could see that the read/write lock
autotest failed (wrong order) before.
I have no idea what does it mean "no prompt". I suppose that such test
could not be run for some reason...
On 09/11/2015 17:12, Jan Viktorin wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> I am working on some auto test in QEMU. My last result for ARMv7 is
> following bellow. What is strange, I could see that the read/write lock
> autotest failed (wrong order) before.
>
> I have no idea what does it mean "no prompt". I suppo
6 matches
Mail list logo
