| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:57:07 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...ecomint.eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add rdc321x defconfig file * Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote: > > the existing 32-bit and 64-bit defconfigs should be enough for that. > > For better/full coverage, randconfig should be used. > > The two big problems with randconfigs are: > - either you build each .config both with and without your patch or you > have to manually check which of the failures are caused by your patch > - you require at least an order of magnitude more builds for having the > same amount of common configurations covered > > And any solution that only works on x86 (e.g. based on the expectation > that all randconfig configurations normally build) is of zero value > for me since x86 is only one out of 23 architectures. so if an arguably sane testing method "only" works on x86 then the right solution is to fix the other architectures to be sanely testable too. I've seen architectures that were build-tested for the _first time_ at around 2.6.24-rc8... Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists