linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] rbtree: performance and correctness test

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:	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:09:11 -0700
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	aarcange@...hat.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, riel@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, daniel.santos@...ox.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/12] rbtree: performance and correctness test

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:33:35 -0700 Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Ah, I did not realize we had a precedent for in-tree kernel test modules.
>
> hm, well, just because that's what we do now doesn't mean that it was a
> good idea ;) These things arrive as a result of individual developers
> doing stuff in their little directories and no particular thought was
> put into overall structure.
>
> It could be that it would be better to put all these tests into a
> central place, rather than sprinkling them around the tree.  If so,
> then your patch can lead the way, and we (ie: I) prod past and future
> developers into getting with the program.
>
> otoh, perhaps in-kernel test modules will rely on headers and constants
> which are private to the implementation directory.  So perhaps
> sprinkled-everywhere is the best approach.

I think it is at least reasonable. Where we could improve, however,
would be on the Kconfig side of things.

>> I don't think my proposal was significantly better than this
>> precedent, so I'll just adjust my patch to conform to it:
>> - move rbtree_test.c to lib/
>> - modify just lib/Makefile and lib/Kconfig.debug to get the module built.
>>
>> Will send a replacement patch for this (so you can drop that one patch
>> from the stack and replace it with)
>
> OK, you could do that too.  That way you avoid the problem and we can
> worry about it later (if ever), as a separate activity.

Going to attach as a reply to this email.

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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/