linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] Reiserfs/kill-bkl tree v2

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:	Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:32:09 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>,
	Reiserfs <reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@...il.com>,
	"Trenton D. Adams" <trenton.d.adams@...il.com>,
	Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
	Marcel Hilzinger <mhilzinger@...uxnewmedia.de>,
	Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Reiserfs/kill-bkl tree v2

On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 16:21 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > > e.g. running all the file system stress tests from LTP would be 
> > > a good idea, ideally multiple at a time on a multi processor 
> > > system on a ram disk or perhaps AIM9.
> > 
> > Yeah good idea. But again, I fear my laptop hasn't enough memory 
> > to support big enough ramdisks mount points to host selftests.
> 
> Well, dont waste too much time on it (beyond the due diligence 
> level) - Andi forgot that the right way to stress-test patches is to 
> get through the review process and then through the integration 
> trees which have far more test exposure than any single contributor 
> can test.
> 
> Patch submitters cannot possibly test every crazy possibility that 
> is out there - nor should they: it just doesnt scale. What we expect 
> people to do is to write clean patches, to test the bits on their 
> own boxes and submit them to lkml and address specific review 
> feedback.

Is this the case for patches against drivers which the submitter doesn't
have or can't get a hold of?

Daniel

--
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/