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 15:02:25 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:52 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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)

Bamvor, Shuah: do you still have interest in maintaining these, or can
we update MAINTAINERS?

Bart

>
> 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.