| 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: <1282412916.2269.1.camel@brekeke> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:48:36 +0300 From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> To: don.mullis@...il.com Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] improve list_sort test On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 09:59 -0700, don.mullis@...il.com wrote: > Thanks, Artem. I've prepared and tested locally a patch series that > brings in most of the series you sent earlier, and adds a few more > cleanups. The one patch of yours that I did replace was the last one, > that modifies semantics of the correctness test. My reasoning is that > the value of testing lies in exposing bugs, as economically as possible, > and your test wasn't exposing my power-of-two bug. So I created an > alternative that's as simple as possible while picking at the corner > cases, e.g. power-of-two. That's fine, thanks. > Last in my local patch series is the bug fix itself. Setting > CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT and testing with all but the last patch applied > produces failure messages on the boot console. Pushing the final "fix" > patch makes them go away :-) Sounds good. > Okay if I incorporate your comment addition, above, and post the series > for review? Sure, I'll be happy if you take care of this, just keep me in CC when you submit the patches, please. Thanks, Artem. -- 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