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 15:27:51 +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 15:19:55 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Can this aspect vary over time?

Not really.

> > The test result should be mentioned concisely.
> 
> How do you think about to introduce accepted automatic test procedures?

If *you* do introduce automatic testing for *your* patches, then I
appreciate it.

> > You shouldn't rely on my system.
> 
> Did this system get sufficient trust so far?

I can trust my system for my purpose.

> > The main point is your patch itself; make your patch more reliable.
> 
> It seems that I can make my adjustments only a bit more interesting
> by positive review comments from other contributors
> (if you can not become convinced by the concrete source code changes).

Yes.


Takashi