linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] bitmap: Add bitmap_zero()/bitmap

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, 11 Jan 2018 15:07:19 +0300
From:   Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] bitmap: Add bitmap_zero()/bitmap_clear() test
 cases

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 03:11:45PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 12:34 +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:24:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Explicitly test bitmap_zero() and bitmap_clear() functions.
> 
> > > +	/* Known way to set all bits */
> > 
> > Nit: if you start your comments with capital, proceed that way till
> > the end.
> 
> Right, I have to keep the original style. I'll check this.
> 
> > I don't understand what patch #4 is doing in this series. At the first
> > glance, it may be applied separately.
> 
> It fixes test failures found by patch 2 in the series.
> The idea is similar to TDD.

So with current order, patch 2 introduces regression that is fixed in
patch 4, is my understanding correct?

This is not the best idea because it will break bisectability. I would
recommend you to change the order and move patch #4 to the begin.

Also it would be reasonable to leave a note in patch 2 comment that it
causes regression if applied alone.

Yury