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]

Message-ID: <af4036b7-72b7-16f3-92de-4976b49d857e@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 10:04:05 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Cc:     Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamv2005@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] gpio: cdev: add uAPI v2

On 9/8/20 9:54 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:24 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/4/20 7:02 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> I maintain kselftests and gpio selftest falls under that. Please send
>> selftest patches to me so I can review them.
>>
>> As for the gpio mock driver and test itself, you will have to wait for
>> Bamvor to respond.
>>
> 
> Hi Shuah,
> 
> I've been de facto maintaining gpio-mockup for a couple years now.
> Bamvor has been quite inactive as far as gpio testing goes. I think
> it's fine if you ack the selftests changes.
> 

That is fine. I can do quick review and Ack so you can take them
through gpio tree.

> In fact: I don't want selftests to block getting V2 uAPI upstream so
> if that'll look like it's going to take more time then I'm for merging
> V2 without any changes to selftests - in the end we have tests in
> user-space already.
> 

Tests and features go through subsystem trees to avoid delays. Please
make sure the test doesn't break the default kselftest build/run.

In the future it would help if you include all the maintainers on the
patch series, so I can review the tests from the framework angle to
see if they build/run correctly.

thanks,
-- Shuah