From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: laijs@cn.fujitsu.com (Lai Jiangshan)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:15:21 +0800
Subject: [ltt-dev] [PATCH 3/9] add cds_lfht_add_at()
In-Reply-To: <20111118142943.GA25096@Krystal>
References: <1321246259-21223-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<1321246259-21223-4-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<4EC22183.1050900@cn.fujitsu.com> <20111118142943.GA25096@Krystal>
Message-ID: <4EC9C249.9090607@cn.fujitsu.com>

On 11/18/2011 10:29 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Lai Jiangshan (laijs at cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
>> It seems that the testing patches have a strange problem, please wait
>> before merge it.
> 
> Hi Lai,
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear from you before pulling the testing patches.
> One thought that occurs to me is that we should probably create a second
> hash table test program alongside with the existing one.
> 
> The test program currently in the tree can also be used as an example of
> how to use the hash table. The modifications you bring are interesting
> for testing subtle corner-cases, but these transform the test program in
> a synthetic workload that cannot be used as a usage example.
> 
> So, what are your thoughts about creating a second hash table test
> program ? It can very well be derived from a copy of test_urcu_hash, no
> problem there. We could event rename the current test_urcu_hash into
> example_urcu_hash.c ?

Hi, Mathieu,

Did you miss the memory-management patches, you can merge them first.

Testing patches are not urgent/important, you can use original test-suit.
Testing patches need to be carefully reworked. The strange problem is
not a bug: The testing results sometimes(5%) are unstable. But I can't find
the reason.

Thanks,
Lai.