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  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:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:27:44 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <>
To:     Boqun Feng <>
        Andrea Parri <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Nicholas Piggin <>,
        David Howells <>,
        Jade Alglave <>,
        Luc Maranget <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Akira Yokosawa <>,
        Daniel Lustig <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] tools/memory-model: Add litmus tests for atomic APIs

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Boqun Feng wrote:

> A recent discussion raises up the requirement for having test cases for
> atomic APIs:
> , and since we already have a way to generate a test module from a
> litmus test with klitmus[1]. It makes sense that we add more litmus
> tests for atomic APIs into memory-model.

It might be worth discussing this point a little more fully.  The 
set of tests in tools/memory-model/litmus-tests/ is deliberately rather 
limited.  Paul has a vastly more expansive set of litmus tests in a 
GitHub repository, and I am doubtful about how many new tests we want 
to keep in the kernel source.

Perhaps it makes sense to have tests corresponding to all the examples
in Documentation/, perhaps not.  How do people feel about this?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists