linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Fix test_arm_callgraph

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0050f8d2-a4cd-2b84-77ad-6fa93bb14b16@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:09:23 +0100
From:   James Clark <james.clark@....com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cocci@...ia.fr,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, spoorts2@...ibm.com,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Fix test_arm_callgraph_fp variable expansion



On 23/06/2023 17:56, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …
>> At the same time silence the shellcheck warning for that line and fix
>> two more shellcheck errors at the end of the script.
> 
> Does such a wording really fit to the known requirement “Solve only one problem per patch.”?
> 
> See also:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.4-rc7#n81
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus

I think so, it fixes all the shellcheck errors that were claimed to be
fixed and introduced by the referenced fix.

To be honest I would have rather just reverted the original change
completely because it was obviously never tested.