linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/test_bitmap: increment failure counter properly

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: <Y/1ruRmnY4eU536Q@yury-laptop>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 18:49:29 -0800
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/test_bitmap: increment failure counter properly

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:55:05AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 01:45:23PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The tests that don't use expect_eq() macro to determine that a test is
> > failured must increment failed_tests explicitly.
> 
> ...
> 
> >  			pr_err("bitmap_copy_arr32(nbits == %d:"
> >  				" tail is not safely cleared: %d\n",
> 
> Usually we don't split string literals (since checkpatch doesn't complain on a
> looong lines with them at the end of the line),
> 
> ...
> 
> >  			pr_err("bitmap_copy_arr64(nbits == %d:"
> >  				" tail is not safely cleared: %d\n", nbits, next_bit);
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> P.S. Seems a material for another patch.

If you're OK with this patch, can you give your review tag please?

Thanks,
Yury