linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

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]

Date:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 20:52:50 +0800
From:   Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 04:37:50PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:02:04AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:21 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > 
> > To me it looks good, just a couple nits here and there and some questions.
> > 
> > I think it's worth deciding whether we want to keep the selftests in
> > tools/testing/selftests/gpio/ and then maybe consider porting
> > gpio-mockup-chardev.c to V2 or simply outsource it entirely to
> > libgpiod.
> > 
> 
> Ooops - I wasn't even aware they existed - though it had crossed my mind
> that the kernel should have some selftests somewhere - I use the libgpiod
> tests, from my libgpiod port, and my own Go based test suite for my testing,
> as well as some smoke tests with the tools/gpio.
> 
> The libgpiod tests only cover v1 equivalent functionality, while my Go
> tests cover the complete uAPI, and both v1 and v2.
> 
> It would be good for the kernel to at least have some smoke tests to
> confirm basic functionality, even thorough testing is left to a
> userspace library.  So the existing tests should be ported to v2, though
> should also retain the v1 tests if v1 is still compiled in.
> 

I've got a v7 ready to submit that includes a couple of patches for the
gpio-mockup selftests (their primary purpose appears to be testing the
mockup module, rather than the GPIO ABI), but I now notice that the
selftests/gpio section of the tree has a different maintainer:

scripts/get_maintainer.pl 0021-selftests-gpio-port-to-GPIO-uAPI-v2.patch
Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com> (maintainer:GPIO MOCKUP DRIVER)
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org> (maintainer:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK)
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org (open list:GPIO MOCKUP DRIVER)
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org (open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK)
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)

The v7 patch up to that point restores the functions that the selftests
are using so that they build and run again.
So I should hold off on the selftest patches and submit them separately
after the GPIO changes are in?

Cheers,
Kent.