From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932374AbdEVAdu (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2017 20:33:50 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:53545 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932083AbdEVAdt (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2017 20:33:49 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: John Stultz , Richard Cochran Cc: Miroslav Lichvar , lkml , Prarit Bhargava Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock In-Reply-To: References: <20170517161317.19557-1-mlichvar@redhat.com> <20170517165756.GA19423@localhost> <20170517172220.GB19423@localhost> <20170518045435.GB2258@localhost.localdomain> Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 12:49:56 +0930 Message-ID: <87fufykiar.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org John Stultz writes: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Richard Cochran > wrote: >> 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. > > So a few years ago I mentioned this at a testing session at I think > Linux Plubmers' and Rusty (CC'ed) commented that he had some netfilter > (or iptables?) simulator code that never made it upstream. However, > now that kselftests are integrated with the kernel this could change. > At least that's my memory of the discussion. Yep, we did it with nfsim, but forward porting was a PITA. Good luck! Rusty.