linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/lkmm 04/10] EXP litmus_tests: Add comments explaining tests' purposes

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802091345180.1460-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:   Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:46:30 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, <mingo@...nel.org>,
        <parri.andrea@...il.com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        <npiggin@...il.com>, <dhowells@...hat.com>, <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/lkmm 04/10] EXP litmus_tests:  Add comments
 explaining tests' purposes

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> This commit adds comments to the litmus tests summarizing what these
> tests are intended to demonstrate.
> 
> Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> [ paulmck: Apply Andrea's and Alan's feedback. ]
> ---

> --- a/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
> +++ b/tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce.litmus
> @@ -1,5 +1,15 @@
>  C IRIW+poonceonces+OnceOnce
>  
> +(*
> + * Result: Never
> + *
> + * Test of independent reads from independent writes with nothing
> + * between each pairs of reads.  In other words, is anything at all
> + * needed to cause two different reading processes to agree on the order
> + * of a pair of writes, where each write is to a different variable by a
> + * different process?
> + *)

The result should be Sometimes.

Alan