From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754490AbdEREym (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2017 00:54:42 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:34653 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753348AbdEREyl (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 May 2017 00:54:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 06:54:35 +0200 From: Richard Cochran To: John Stultz Cc: Miroslav Lichvar , lkml , Prarit Bhargava Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock Message-ID: <20170518045435.GB2258@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170517161317.19557-1-mlichvar@redhat.com> <20170517165756.GA19423@localhost> <20170517172220.GB19423@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:06:07PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > Is there a better way to run the timekeeping code in an userspace > > application? I suspect it would need something like the Linux Kernel > > Library project. > > I dunno. There's probably a cleaner way to go about it, but I also > feel like the benefit of just having the test in the kernel tree is > that it can be managed as a unified whole, rather then the test being > a separate thing and always playing catchup to kernel changes. I vaguely recall a rant on the list years ago from a Linux bigwhig saying how we don't support that kind of thing. But maybe it is my imagination. In any case, IMHO running user space tests for chunks of kernel code can be quite useful. Thanks, Richard