netdev - Re: COMPILE

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: <20200901171738.23af6c63@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 17:17:38 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: COMPILE_TEST

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 23:48:52 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:22:31PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > Jakub, you suggested/requested that the Qualcomm IPA driver get
> > built when the COMPILE_TEST config option is enabled.  I started
> > working on this a few months ago but didn't finish, and picked
> > it up again today.  I'd really like to get this done soon.
> > 
> > The QCOM_IPA config option depends on and selects other things,
> > and those other things depend on and select still more config
> > options.  I've worked through some of these, but now question
> > whether this is even the right approach.  Should I try to ensure
> > all the code the IPA driver depends on and selects *also* gets
> > built when COMPILE_TEST is enabled?  Or should I try to minimize
> > the impact on other code by making IPA config dependencies and
> > selections also depend on the value of COMPILE_TEST?
> > 
> > Is there anything you know of that describes best practice for
> > enabling a config option when COMPILE_TEST is enabled?  
> 
> Hi Alex
> 
> In general everything which can be build with COMPILE_TEST should be
> built with COMPILE_TEST. So generally it just works, because
> everything selected should already be selected because they already
> have COMPILE_TEST.
> 
> Correctly written drivers should compile for just about any
> architecture. If they don't it suggests they are not using the APIs
> correctly, and should be fixed.
> 
> If the dependencies have not had COMPILE_TEST before, you are probably
> in for some work, but in the end all the drivers will be of better
> quality, and get build tested a lot more.

Nothing to add :) I'm not aware of any codified best practices.