From: Subrata M. <tos...@gm...> - 2008-05-28 13:57:03
|
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves < lcl...@uu...> wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 02:18:51PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: > | > > > | > > | > Are you going to post a new patch against this backdrop ? > | > > | > | Is new patch forthcoming ? > | > | Regards-- > | Subrata > > Subrata, sorry for the delay in answering your email. > > After Chirag's message I started testing with the SVN codebase. > Yesterday I saw a few anomalous time readings in one test run but > as I was not able to reproduce it, I understand it was something > trasient. I repeated the tests in the machines I used to see busy_work_ms() > not performing well in the past. > > I have been using the stable tarball from February plus a few patches and I > had seen this problem there. As the code for busy_work has not changed > much, > I decided sending a patch I had in place for sometime and always forgot > sending upstream. > > Anyway, the patch I sent is no longer useful. Thanks luis. We hope that you will continue using these test cases and keep providing comments on them. Regards-- Subrata > > > Thanks for your review! > Luis > -- > [ Luis Claudio R. Goncalves Bass - Gospel - RT ] > [ Fingerprint: 4FDD B8C4 3C59 34BD 8BE9 2696 7203 D980 A448 C8F8 ] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > Ltp...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list > -- Regards & Thanks-- Subrata |