netdev - Re: [PATCH net 09/13] docs: netdev: make the testing requirement more stringent

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: <YkCUEwZI0jUmamPg@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sun, 27 Mar 2022 18:42:59 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        corbet@....net, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        f.fainelli@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 09/13] docs: netdev: make the testing requirement
 more stringent

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 07:53:56PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> These days we often ask for selftests so let's update our
> testing requirements.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 14 +++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
> index 85a0af5dca65..26110201f301 100644
> --- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
> @@ -196,11 +196,15 @@ as possible alternative mechanisms.
>  
>  What level of testing is expected before I submit my change?
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> -If your changes are against ``net-next``, the expectation is that you
> -have tested by layering your changes on top of ``net-next``.  Ideally
> -you will have done run-time testing specific to your change, but at a
> -minimum, your changes should survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an
> -``allmodconfig`` build without new warnings or failures.
> +At the very minimum your changes must survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an
> +``allmodconfig`` build with ``W=1`` set without new warnings or failures.

Doesn't the patchwork buildbot also have C=1 ? You have been pointing
out failures for C=1, so it probably should be documented here.

	 Andrew