linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math

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: <20201023090220.GU4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 12:02:20 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: add basic KUnit test for lib/math

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:21:40PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:04 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:53:50AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 8:06 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

...

> > Why do we have docs in the first place?
> > For test cases I think it's a crucial part, because tests many time are written
> > by newbies, who would like to understand all under-the-hood stuff. You imply
> 
> Good point. Yeah, we don't really have any documentation that explains
> the internals at all. I agree: we need to fix that.
> 
> > that they need to drop themselves into the code directly. It's very harsh to
> > begin with Linux kernel development, really.
> 
> No, I was not trying to imply that everyone should just jump in the
> code and ignore the docs. I was just trying to point out that some
> people - myself included - rather see code than docs. Clearly some
> people prefer docs over code as well. Thus, I was trying to argue that
> both are appropriate.
> 
> Nevertheless, based on the other comments you sent, I don't think
> that's what we are talking about: sounds like you just want us to
> improve the docs first to make sure we do it. That's fine with me.

Right. What confused me is that test cases for math were pushed as a good
example how to create a test case, but at the same time docs left untouched.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko