linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] test_bits: add tests for BIT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z8sZs_Tfl4G8PoAM@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:07:15 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] test_bits: add tests for BIT_U*()

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 07:11:42PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> On 07/03/2025 at 02:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 01:08:15AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2025 at 22:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:58PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
> >>>> From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
> >>>>
> >>>> Add some additional tests in lib/test_bits.c to cover the expected
> >>>> results of the fixed type BIT_U*() macros.
> >>>
> >>> Still would be good to have a small assembly test case for GENMASK*() as they
> >>> went split and it will be a good regression test in case somebody decides to
> >>> unify both without much thinking..
> >>
> >> Let me confirm that I correctly understood your ask. Would something
> >> like this meet your expectations?
> > 
> > I believe it should be written in asm.
> 
> I am not confident enough in my assembly skills to submit asm patches to
> the kernel. So, I would rather take a pass on that one.
> 
> Regardless, if somebody decides to unify both without much thinking as
> you said, I am fully confident that the patch will get Nack-ed right

As I said above "would be good", if you think it's not feasible by you, perhaps
a comment (FIXME: ?) in the Kunit test cases that we lack of / need an asm test
as well.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko