Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock

From	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock
Date	2017-05-22 02:40 +0200
Message-ID	<tJJy9-6we-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <tIaCu-5S3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIaVQ-5Z9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIgeR-187-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIlHz-4Zo-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJ0B3-1Qr-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Richard Cochran
> <richardcochran@gmail.com> 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 <mlichvar@redhat.com> 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.

Thread

[PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> - 2017-05-17 18:20 +0200
  [PATCH RFC 1/3] timekeeping: Remove support for old vsyscalls Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> - 2017-05-17 18:20 +0200
  [PATCH RFC 2/3] timekeeping: Don't align frequency adjustments to ticks Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> - 2017-05-17 18:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> - 2017-05-17 18:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> - 2017-05-17 19:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> - 2017-05-17 19:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> - 2017-05-18 01:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 07:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> - 2017-05-20 02:40 +0200
              Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> - 2017-05-22 02:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> - 2017-05-17 19:10 +0200

csiph-web