John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> writes: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Richard Cochran > <richardcoch...@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 <mlich...@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.
