Re: 2.3.47: elevator nr_segments x should be x+1

From: Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Date: Tue Feb 22 2000 - 11:22:06 EST

Next message: Dan Kegel: "Re: accept() improvements for rt signals"
Previous message: Dunlap, Randy: "RE: Linux/ix86 booting process and BIOS"
In reply to: David Wragg: "2.3.47: elevator nr_segments x should be x+1"
Next in thread: Thomas Molina: "Re: 2.3.47: elevator nr_segments x should be x+1"
Reply: Thomas Molina: "Re: 2.3.47: elevator nr_segments x should be x+1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 21 Feb 2000, David Wragg wrote:

>The bad news is this:
>
>03:08: elevator nr_segments 197 should be 198
>03:08: elevator nr_segments 239 should be 240

Don't worry about this. It's can't harm per se. Anyway it's interesting to
discover why this is happening. Can you reproduce?

Andrea

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Dan Kegel: "Re: accept() improvements for rt signals"
Previous message: Dunlap, Randy: "RE: Linux/ix86 booting process and BIOS"
In reply to: David Wragg: "2.3.47: elevator nr_segments x should be x+1"
Next in thread: Thomas Molina: "Re: 2.3.47: elevator nr_segments x should be x+1"
Reply: Thomas Molina: "Re: 2.3.47: elevator nr_segments x should be x+1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:31 EST