linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: default to host arch for LLVM builds

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: <ZjEFOj8NXGO72Ocl@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:50:34 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>
Cc: jhubbard@...dia.com, anders.roxell@...aro.org, bpoirier@...dia.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	mpdesouza@...e.com, nathan@...nel.org, sashal@...nel.org,
	shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: default to host arch for LLVM builds

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:44:52PM +0200, Valentin Obst wrote:
> On 4/29/24 12:04 AM, John Hubbard wrote:

> > I'm expecting to post the series soon, hopefully this week. And I'm
> > thinking maybe I should carry your patch as the first one in the series,
> > in order to ensure it gets picked up. Or, I can just refer to it as a
> > prerequisite in the cover letter.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but intuitively 30+ patches that touch selftests
> from many different subsystems do not sound like something that is going
> to be merged fast. Since I'm also planning to send a separate series that

It just seems unhelpful to lump everything into a single series - a
large portion of the selftests go with the subystems so you'd be
creating a bunch of cross subsystem issues and large serieses with big
CC lists tend to be both offputting and noisy.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)