linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Tests for sync infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2016 07:08:52 -0700
From:   Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
To:     Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk,
        riandrews@...roid.com, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
        John.C.Harrison@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, ghackmann@...gle.com,
        robdclark@...il.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, daniels@...labora.com,
        arve@...roid.com, emil.l.velikov@...il.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Tests for sync infrastructure

On 12/01/2016 06:17 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 06:49 AM, Emilio López wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> This is a series of tests to exercise the sync kernel infrastructure. It is
>> meant to be a test suite for the work Gustavo has been doing to destage it.
>>
>> These tests were originally part of a battery of tests shipping with
>> Android's libsync that were rewritten to use the new userspace interfaces.
>>
>> This is the second iteration of the test suite. Main changes over v1 are
>> a reworked Makefile and small code style fixes.
>>
>> If you are testing this on v4.9-rc1, do note that the last test will
>> currently fail due to a regression[0].
> 
> Hi Emilio,
> 
> Thanks. I will apply these to linux-kselftest next for 4.10-rc1
> 
> -- Shuah
>>
>> As usual, all comments are welcome.
>>

Hi Emilio,

Applied to linux-kselftest next. Could you take a look at the output
and see if it can be refined. Does [BAD] mean the test failed? Results
could refined to help user understand if a test failed or not clearly.
This can be done in a separate patch as a fix in one of the 4.01-rcs

thanks,
-- Shuah