netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] selftests: bpf: break up test

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: <20190127103328.266e363e@cakuba.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Sun, 27 Jan 2019 10:33:28 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] selftests: bpf: break up test_verifier

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 22:21:22 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:17:28PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 21:55:30 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:  
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 03:24:41PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> > > > Hi!
> > > > 
> > > > The tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c file is
> > > > way too large, and since most people add their at the
> > > > end of the list it's very prone to conflicts.
> > > > 
> > > > Break it up in the simplest possible way - slice the
> > > > array up into smaller C files and include them in the
> > > > right spot.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested:
> > > > $ make -C tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
> > > > $ cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ ; make
> > > > 
> > > > v2:
> > > > 
> > > > The indentation is reduced further as discussed and lines folded.
> > > > The conversion was scripted, and double checked by hand.    
> > > 
> > > Looks great to me, but even first patch conflicts too much to apply.
> > > Please respin one more time.  
> > 
> > I could have sworn when I pulled bpf-next this morning Jiong's patches
> > were in it ;)  I'll rebase/repost tomorrow morning.  
> 
> They were ;) until they were pulled off.
> Any order is fine.

Looks like v2 just applies cleanly again, should I repost?