linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] doc: kselftest: update for clarity on running kselftests in CI rings

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: <CAFd5g44bYBjrp3XrUAmkDN5o-oD92G9GxVYnF6Y+2fLrodDTTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:38:15 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     shuah <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dan.rue@...aro.org, anders.roxell@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: kselftest: update for clarity on running
 kselftests in CI rings

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:18 PM shuah <shuah@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/26/19 6:37 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > Update to add clarity and recommendations on running newer kselftests
> > on older kernels vs. matching the kernel and kselftest revisions.
> >
> > The recommendation is "Match kernel revision and kselftest."
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
> > ---
> > Changes since v1: Fixed "WARNING: Title underline too short."
>
> I have a few more changes and would like to make and send a v3 after
> the LPC's Testing and Fuzzing kselftest discussion.
>
> Holding off on this patch for now.

Is this just because you are busy, or because you expect what you want
to say to change after the discussion?

If it is because you expect what you want to say here to change, I am
surprised. This seems like pretty good, straightforward advice. From
where I stand this seems like it makes the documentation better
without making anything worse, and so this change should probably be
included.

In anycase, your call. I just don't think anyone is going to dispute
what you are saying here :-)

Cheers!