On 08/14/12 08:30, Clark Williams wrote:

My comments inline.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:15:28 +0000 Jain Priyanka-B32167
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

-----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.

quoted

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