| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090623143012.GF6760@one.firstfloor.org> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists