linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Add kernel-doc test script

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: <20201118092730.32a3920c@lwn.net>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:27:30 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add kernel-doc test script

On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:36:12 -0500
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com> wrote:

> Add a kernel-doc test script to tools/testing/kernel-doc.
> 
> radix_tree_lookup_slot test case provided by Matthew Wilcox.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@...hat.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/kernel-doc/test-case.h          | 111 ++++++++++
>  .../testing/kernel-doc/test-case.man.expected | 150 ++++++++++++++
>  .../kernel-doc/test-case.none.expected        |   0
>  .../kernel-doc/test-case.rst2.expected        | 195 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../kernel-doc/test-case.rst3.expected        | 195 ++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/testing/kernel-doc/test.sh              |  90 ++++++++
>  6 files changed, 741 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/kernel-doc/test-case.h
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/kernel-doc/test-case.man.expected
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/kernel-doc/test-case.none.expected
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/kernel-doc/test-case.rst2.expected
>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/kernel-doc/test-case.rst3.expected
>  create mode 100755 tools/testing/kernel-doc/test.sh

Seems like a good thing to have overall.

I do worry a bit that the test will be sensitive to *any* change to
kernel-doc output, including formatting changes that might be deliberate.
But if that turns out to be a problem in the real world, we can deal with
it then.

Thanks,

jon