linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: left over things in linux-next after 2.6.28-c1

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:	Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:52:45 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: left over things in linux-next after 2.6.28-c1

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:16:51PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 04:37:15PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > tests
> > > 
> > > 	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli (7):
> > > 	      Add tests/ directory
> > > 	      Move locking selftests to tests/
> > > 	      Move rcutorture to tests/
> > > 	      Move rtmutex tester to tests/
> > > 	      Move lkdtm to tests/
> > > 	      Move kprobes smoke tests to tests/
> > > 	      Move backtrace selftests to tests/
> > 
> > I have almost given up on this.
> > Three merge attemps failed for different reasons,
> > and I will not even have time for my maintainership
> > duties the next months.
> > 
> > Anyone that can bring it forward?
> 
> What are the reasons this is failing?  Is it just moving different files
> around into the tests/ directory?  Or is it new functionality here?
> 
> If just moving stuff, is that really needed?

The incentive was to have a common place to add small tests that
could be used to verify that the kernel works as expected.
>From inkernel modules (like rcutorture) to small userspace
utilities such as something massaging the epoll interface or
similar.

The above was just to get it started.

Having a set of tests to run when introducing a new syscall
would make it much easier for an arch maintainer to verify
that the implemented syscall works as expected.

And forcing the developer to use the interface from user-space
will hopefully catch a few issues earlier.

	Sam
--
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/