linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] lib/test_printf: Add tests for %pfw printk modifier

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: <20190902161352.GS2680@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 19:13:52 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] lib/test_printf: Add tests for %pfw printk
 modifier

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:57:32PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Add a test for the %pfw printk modifier using software nodes.

> +static void __init fwnode_pointer(void)
> +{
> +	const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
> +		{ .name = "first", },
> +		{ .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
> +		{ .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
> +		{ NULL /* Guardian */ },

Comma is still here :-)

> +	};

> +	test(full_name_second, "%pfw",
> +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3]));
> +	test(full_name, "%pfw",
> +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
> +	test(full_name, "%pfwf",
> +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
> +	test(second_name, "%pfwP",
> +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3]));
> +	test(third_name, "%pfwP",
> +	     software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));

I have another thought about these. The test cases will fail in either of
adding, inserting or removing items in softnodes array. So, using the above
"protective" scheme doesn't bring any value except making readability worse.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko