On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:40:18 +0200 Mats Liljegren <mats.liljeg...@enea.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:17:56 +0200 > <chru...@suse.cz> wrote: > > > As it is now, upon the installation LTP copies all executables into > > one directory and we are trying to avoid collisions by adding > > sufixes or prefixes to the binaries. > > > > Can we add a rt to all the binaries (list2maskrt, count_ticksrt) or > > something similar while we install them? > > > > I could change partrt to accept CPU list directly instead of being > dependent on list2mask tool, which means that list2mask disappears. > > As for count_ticks, a better name might be kernel_ticks. > count_kernel_ticks would be possible but is a bit too long for me... > > Would having the tool names > > partrt > kernel_ticks > > be good enough for ltp, or do you want kernel_ticks prefixed? If so, > I'd propose: > > partrt > partrt_kernel_ticks > > In this case the original name kernel_ticks will be renamed for ltp > only. > > What do you prefer? The new version of partrt has a tool named "bitcalc", which performs those nasty bit calculations in a C application instead of an ugly Bash script. This made the partrt dash compatible, and also got rid of list2mask script. So the new tool names are: - partrt - bitcalc - count_ticks Having a prefix on bitcalc presents a problem since partrt is using it. This would mean that I have to inform the script that the expected tool is named something else, which I think will make this script a bit ugly. Prefixing partrt and count_ticks should not be a problem though. Assuming we use partrt as prefix (probably safer than just rt), it would become: - partrt_partrt - bitcalc - partrt_count_ticks Would this be safe enough? Regards Mats Liljegren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
