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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:51:48 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> 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 Sun, 27 Mar 2022 18:42:59 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote: > > 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. We have a number of cases where C=1 failures are false positives. Sparse is not getting much love these days, unfortunately. I didn't want to force people to bend over backwards to fix stuff we can let fly upstream. I can't think of a case where W=1 was okay.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists