linux-kernel - Re: S+core architecture (arch/score/) support files

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:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:30:12 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, liqin.chen@...plusct.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: S+core architecture (arch/score/) support files

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:55:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > IMHO a full successfull LTP run should be minimal criterium for
> > merging an architecture. That should catch most of the possible
> > "simple" mistakes in the syscall ABI. I would suggest to wait to after
> > this has been done.
> 
> I agree in general, but in this case the ABI is essentially defined
> through the asm-generic headers, with the exception of the functions

What I meant LTP would test if what you implemented works. Not that
you implement a particular ABI, just that the source level interface
works.

It's not a full test of course, but it's a reasonable sanity check over a wide
range of interfaces. When I was working on my architecture I found
it very helpful.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/