Re: [PATCH 1/2][RFC] Add README_cyclicload

[Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@am.sony.com>]

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@freescale.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org
>> [mailto:linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org] 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@vger.kernel.org; dvhart@linux.intel.com;
>> rostedt@goodmis.org; tglx@linutronix.de; 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