Subrata Modak wrote:
>>Nadia Derbey wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Helsley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES  16      /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
>>>>>+
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
>>>>maximum ;). A better name might better document what the test is
>>>>actually trying to do.
>>>>
>>>>One question I have is whether the unpatched test is still valuable.
>>>>Based on my limited knowledge of the test I suspect it's still a correct
>>>>test of message queues. If so, perhaps renaming the old test (so it's
>>>>not confused with a performance regression) and adding your patched
>>>>version is best?
>>>>
>>>
>>>So, here's the new patch based on Matt's points.
>>>
>>>Subrata, it has to be applied on top of the original ltp-full-20080131. 
>>>Please tell me if you'd prefer one based on the merged version you've 
>>>got (i.e. with my Tuesday patch applied).
> 
> 
> Nadia, I would prefer Patch on the top of the already merged version (on
> top of latest CVS snapshot as of today). Anyways, thanks for all these
> effort :-)
> 
> --Subrata
> 

In attachment, you'll find a patch to apply on top of the patches I sent 
you on Tuesday.

Regards,
Nadia