linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib: test module for find_*

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20171114155555.a9cb0898e257b0641b82e80b@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:55:55 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Clement Courbet <courbet@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: test module for find_*_bit() functions

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:07:30 +0300 Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:

> > Yyra, you can grab CONFIG_BENCHMARK_* namespace :-)
>  
> There's no CONFIG_BENCHMARK_* namespace actually.

Alexey means you can be the first user of CONFIG_BENCHMARK_*.

> The 'CONFIG_*_BENCHMARK' is
> referenced only 3 times in linux sources - CONFIG_RING_BUFFER_BENCHMARK,
> CONFIG_TRACEPOINT_BENCHMARK and CONFIG_GUP_BENCHMARK, so I simply didn't know
> about it. Some other tests like lib/rbtree_test.c also measure performance and
> use TEST namespace, but if you think it's better, I don't object to change it.
>  
> > Another thing:
> > 
> > > +
> > > +       return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +module_init(find_bit_test);
> > > +
> > > +static void __exit test_find_bit_cleanup(void)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > > +module_exit(test_find_bit_cleanup);
> > 
> > module exit hook is entirely unnecessary as you can return -E from init hook.
> > See lib/test-kstrtox.c
> 
> Ack. 
> 
> I thought to send v3, but the patch is already in next tree, so I'll
> send fix in separated patch. OK?

Either approach is OK.