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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20180210010503.GD3617@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Feb 2018 17:05:03 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
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, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:46:30PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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.

Right you are, and better yet, the memory model agrees with you.

I have fixed this, thank you for the careful review!

							Thanx, Paul