linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable compile warnings

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:   Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:49:09 -0700
From:   Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests, x86, protection_keys: fix unused variable
 compile warnings

On 02/02/2017 04:45 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 03:36 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> This patches is already in linux-kselftest next for 4.11
>>
>> Is there a reason why you chose to resend these.
> 
> Oh, my apologies!  I didn't realize it had been picked up elsewhere.
> Ingo had mentioned a few times in the last few days that he'd noticed
> the warnings.
> 
> So, x86 maintainers, do we want these to go through the kselftest tree
> or the x86 tree?
> 

I usually let many of the new tests that depend on new features go through
x86 tree. Patches that fix problems that are already in kselftest, I send
them up in via kselftest.

I noticed these when very early on when 4.10-rc1 came out and send the patches
out. SO they have been in linux-kselftest next for a while now.

thanks,
-- Shuah