linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] SHA-512 library functions

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: <20250617195858.GA1288@sol>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:58:58 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	"Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] SHA-512 library functions

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:43:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 12:22, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>
> > The tests are already in their own patches: patches 4 and 5.  Yes, this patchset
> > has a negative diffstat once you subtract them.
> 
> Yes, the patches were separate, but my point stands.
> 
> Let me repeat that part of the email since you seem to have missed it:
> 
> > If I see a pull request that only adds new tests, it's a no-brainer.
> >
> > If I see a pull request that only re-organizes the code and the
> > diffstat just just renames with some small updates for new locations,
> > it's a no-brainer.
> >
> > If I see a pull request that does both, it's a pain in the arse,
> > because then I need to start to look into individual commits and go
> > "which does what".
> 
> IOW, I really prefer pull requests to do clearly separate things too
> when we're talking re-organization. Or at the very least spell things
> out *very* clearly.
> 
> Otherwise I have to waste time just to go split things out _anyway_.

Again, the tests depend on the code they test being added first.

I could do two pull requests, the first with all non-test code and the second
with all test code, where the second depends on the first, i.e. it will have the
last commit of the first as its base commit.  Is that what you want?  Or are you
misunderstanding and thinking the tests are independent and apply to current
mainline?

- Eric