linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] of/selftest: add testcase for nodes with same name and address

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: <536BDEAF.5030602@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 08 May 2014 12:44:47 -0700
From:	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC:	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@...sol.com>,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	Courtney Cavin <courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] of/selftest: add testcase for nodes with same name
 and address

On 5/8/2014 1:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2014 2:48 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> Add a test case for nodes which have the same name and same
>>> non-translatable unit address.
>>
>> If I apply patch 1 and 2 without applying 3 and 4 then console
>> warnings are printed, but from a different area of code than
>> the original problem reported.  This probably is not a big deal,
>> but I'm trying to figure out if I can modify the test to also
>> show the original problem.
>>
>> The test case also properly reports the failure.
>>
>> Once all 4 patches are applied, then the test case passes.
> 
> When adding testcases I do prefer the addition of the test to appear
> before the fix while the patch is under review. Makes it easy to see
> that, yes the bug exists, and yes the later patch resolves it.
> 
> When the patches are actually committed for merging then it is
> probably a good idea to reverse them. Thanks for the testing.

In this case, the test case has to be patch #2, if you want to be
able to verify that the test case catches the bug, because patch
#1 added code to allow the error return value to propagate all
the way out to the API called by the test code.  So the patch
ordering is correct.

> 
> g.
> 
>>
>> Thus:
>>
>>    Tested-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...ymobile.com>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/of/selftest.c                        | 23 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/of/testcase-data/testcases.dtsi      |  1 +
>>>  drivers/of/testcase-data/tests-platform.dtsi | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/testcase-data/tests-platform.dtsi
>>>
>>
>> < snip >
>>
> .
> 

--
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/