linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] selftests/nolibc: rename Makefile

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: <20250621041421.GA26603@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 06:14:21 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] selftests/nolibc: rename Makefile

Hi Thomas,

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:39:32PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> The nolibc tests are not real kselftests, they work differently and
> provide a different interface. Users trying to use them like real
> selftests may be confused and the tests are not executed by CI systems.
> 
> To make space for an integration with the kselftest framework, move the
> custom tests out of the way.
> The custom tests are still useful to keep as they provide functionality
> not provided by kselftests.

I'm wondering, what prevents us from merging the new rules into the
current makefile instead of renaming it, especially considering the
fact that we initially took care of not confiscating the "all" target ?
I'm asking because: 

  $ make -f Makefile.nolibc help

is clearly less convenient and intuitive than:

  $ make help

Regards,
Willy