linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] selftests/vm: use a common gup

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: <9372727e-1a79-913b-5391-e0c4a85bf5a7@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 14:20:14 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] selftests/vm: use a common gup_test.h

On 9/29/20 2:11 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/29/20 1:00 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 1:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> I only remarked because I didn't know it wasn't using kbuild. I
>>> thought it would have used the existing HOSTCC stuff, not sure why it
>>> is special.
>>>
>>> The only investment that seems worthwhile would be to switch it to use
>>> the normal kbuild stuff??
>>>
>>
>> I explored switching to kbuild at the kernel summit last year during
>> my kselftest where are we talk.
>>
>> There was push back from several developers. We can definitely explore
>> it as long as we can still support being able to build and run
>> individual subsystem tests and doesn't break workflow for developers.
>>
> 
> Do you have a link or two for that? Especially about the pushback, and
> conclusions reached, if any.
> 

Unfortunately no. A I recall it was workflow related issues and ease of
running individual subsystem tests and backwards compatibility with
stables.

Let's start a new discussion and see where we land.

thanks,
-- Shuah