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]

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:58:00 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>
Cc: 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 4/30/24 7:50 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:44:52PM +0200, Valentin Obst wrote:
>> On 4/29/24 12:04 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
>> 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.

Thanks for this timely advice! I was on the fence about the best way to
send these out. I'll break it up into subsystem patchsets (that don't
directly include Valentin's patch, but do refer to it) instead, which as
you say, should go *much* more smoothly.

In fact, just yesterday I fixed the last warning, so I'll start posting
some much smaller patchsets later today.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA