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]

Message-ID: <20090624070708.GI6760@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:07:08 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	liqin.chen@...plusct.com
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: S+core architecture (arch/score/) support files

> I think merge score to upstream will be no harm to linux kernel.

The problem is just that if the code is not tested in its
current configuration it will most likely not work (unless you're a perfect 
coder, but most of us are not). And merging code that doesn't work doesn't
make sense.

The need for a full retest after the changes inspired by review
feedback is somewhat annoying -- I agree -- but there's really
no way around it that I know.

BTW I'm not saying that LTP is the perfect user test (it's definitely
not), but it's a relatively useful basic sanity check and you
should pass something like this at least. Other real user testing would
be still needed too of course then.

-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/