linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: dev-tools: Add Testing Overview

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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:53:41 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: dev-tools: Add Testing Overview

David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> writes:

> The kernel now has a number of testing and debugging tools, and we've
> seen a bit of confusion about what the differences between them are.
>
> Add a basic documentation outlining the testing tools, when to use each,
> and how they interact.
>
> This is a pretty quick overview rather than the idealised "kernel
> testing guide" that'd probably be optimal, but given the number of times
> questions like "When do you use KUnit and when do you use Kselftest?"
> are being asked, it seemed worth at least having something. Hopefully
> this can form the basis for more detailed documentation later.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> ---
>
> Thanks again. Assuming no-one has any objections, I think this is good
> to go.

I've applied it after fixing the conflict with docs-next.

Thanks,

jon