linux-kernel - Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

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:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:38:18 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:17:00 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> Which test results would you like to see or hear (!) from a real device
> >> (or a configuration in a virtual machine)?
> > 
> > I don't mind either case as long as the test works.
> 
> How would you notice that a corresponding system test worked
> in reasonable ways?

It needs a trust to the patch author or the tester who reported that
it worked.  The test result should be mentioned concisely.

> >> I find such a development tool very relevant to reduce your concerns.
> > 
> > It's about your patches, not my system.
> 
> Your own automatic test system could provide a bit of
> more confidence for some change possibilities, couldn't it?

You shouldn't rely on my system.  The main point is your patch itself;
make your patch more reliable.


Takashi