linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test

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: <20201103121810.GA1054984@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:18:10 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_printf.c to KUnit

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 02:06:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:33:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:40:49PM +0530, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Better, indeed.
> > >
> > > But can be this improved to have a cumulative statistics, like showing only
> > > number of total, succeeded, failed with details of the latter ones?
> >
> > Is that the proper test output format?  We have a standard...
> 
> I dunno. I'm asking...
> We have few possibilities here: a) let it go like above, b) use the
> cumulative statistics, c) if there is no such available, implement and
> use it, d) ...

We have a standard, please use it.

greg k-h