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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74gmncf3mmoymdj2ranyzgzohv4m3osnnyckiwj55a6j7pi2lg@524euomat43i>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 16:44:52 +0000
From:   Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@....com>
To:     Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
CC:     "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@...tmail.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v3 11/12] nvme/rc: Move discovery generation
 counter code to rc

On May 10, 2023 / 19:24, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 11:34:51PM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > On May 03, 2023 / 10:02, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > > Move the discovery generation counter code to rc so that we can reuse
> > > it in 002.
> > 
> > The last #12 patch no longer touches nvme/002, then I'm not so sure this patch
> > is valuable. IMO, the lengthy 002.out has the role to check all of the 1000
> > times discoveries are successful. So it looks the better to keep current
> > nvme/002 as is.
> 
> While we don't update the counter anymore, I still think it's worthwhile to
> do some cleanup. We have two tests which do the same thing so why not use common
> code?

Now nvme/002 checks 1000 discovery logs, and nvme/030 doesn't. For the common
code clean up, this patch removes the 1000 logs check from nvme/002. It looks
for me the check to remove has some value. Do you think the check is
meaningless?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ