On 08/14/12 08:30, Clark Williams wrote: > > My comments inline. > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:15:28 +0000 Jain Priyanka-B32167 > <B32167@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: >> linux-rt-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:linux-rt-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jain >> Priyanka-B32167 Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:06 PM To: John >> Kacur; Frank Rowand Cc: Clark Williams; >> linux-rt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Srivastava Rajan-B34330; >> Aggrwal Poonam-B10812 Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] Add >> README_cyclicload >> >> >> Thanks John and Frank for going through it. I didn't look at the load portion of the patch (the whole point of the proposal) - I only looked at how it was breaking cyclictest. >> >> As Frank has suggested to make it separate application and as John >> also pointed out that it is breaking some of cyclic-test features, >> and also the targeted use-case is different, so I think it's better >> to maintain it as separate tool. Please comments on this. > > What I'd *really* like to do is pull the common routines out of > cyclictest.c and put them in separate object files, so that we could > create cyclictest-like-tests such as cyclicload without having to > cram the new logic into cyclictest. As Frank mentioned, cyclictest > is complicated enough and somewhat fragile, so adding new logic tends > to just add new bugs as well. > > John (and Frank and the test of the CC list) what do you think? If there is a set of common routines and several programs that need to use them, then that would make sense. If the only other use case is cyclicload then it seems like a lot of pain for little gain. There is already rt-tests/src/lib/ that contains common code... < snip > - Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
