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: <OFBE328A69.2A153130-ON482575E0.000D6758-482575E0.0010F631@sunplusct.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:00:22 +0800
From:	liqin.chen@...plusct.com
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch-owner@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: S+core architecture (arch/score/) support files

linux-arch-owner@...r.kernel.org 写于 2009-06-24 15:07:08:

> 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.

Thanks Andi,

In fact, what I worry about is leaving score outside upstream,
Few person will pay attation to asm-generic/score patches.
When score kernel/glibc finish its update and passed LTP,
We still could not catch up people's suggestion.

Best Regards
Liqin