On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 02:28 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Subrata Modak
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>         
>         On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:32 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>         > There's a libipc in ".../testcases/kernel/mem/hugetlb/lib/"
>         and also
>         > one in ".../testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/lib". The source
>         is
>         > (not-so-astoundingly) almost the same, with only a few extra
>         macros
>         > with hugetlb's libipc and some extra code (not much) in
>         getipckey(..);
>         > I'm not quite sure why hugetlb uses a time seeded random key
>         lookup
>         > method whereas the source in ipc features the almost same
>         exact
>         > functionality, moduland and all. get_used_msgqueues and
>         > get_max_msgqueues also exist only in ipc's libipc code.
>         >
>         > Why isn't there just 1 libipc, with the non-commonalities
>         stripped out
>         > of the source, or at least modularized to the extent where
>         only one
>         > library is required?
>         
>         
>         I like this idea too. Modularize it to a bare common mimimum
>         and submit
>         a patch whenever you are done with your most prioritized items
>         first.
>         Make sure that it does not affect either HUGETLB or
>         SYSCALLS/IPC runs
>         either independently or with default LTP run.
>         
>         Regards--
>         Subrata
>         
>         >
>         > Thanks,
>         > -Garrett
> 
> These priorities are concurrent, s.t. if I don't do this, things may
> get a lot messier.
> 
> My goal is to structure things like...
> 
> $(prefix)/bin # all binaries
> $(prefix)/lib # all libraries
> 
> ... for installed targets.
> 
> If unique naming is an issue is can be sorted out using
> $(prefix)/{bin|lib}/some_component.
> 
> The purpose is to improve packaging / use for 3rd party folks and end
> users.
> 
> Any complaints with that restructuring in install?

I don“t think so. But you can do the restructuring on your own,
stabilize it and send across the patch to LTP. We will take it forward
then. I think if anything simplifies end-user usage, that should be
taken into. We will see what others say, but, that will require your
patch first.

Regards--
Subrata

> 
> -Garrett
> 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft 
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Reply via email to