From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757512AbZFWWMK (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:12:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752805AbZFWWMA (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:12:00 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f214.google.com ([209.85.217.214]:52854 "EHLO mail-gx0-f214.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751888AbZFWWL7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:11:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=p6jiBbyy/AR5BLmEA+k48j2HQikEoj0fXgQ4hp22i99wjTI8ytpknPYNTWKFBEJ9qR v6iUFRnv/08FKo4FZ83KQ+kCwkpX7ullZX6Z/zyD16xBsq6Ks5+ESgn5b2FPzgcr6HZE QWeJsvw8UR6xM5VzxrUQ2izzeZX50qQeLJxPQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200906240006.10881.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1244980878-2124-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <200906232314.18261.arnd@arndb.de> <8bd0f97a0906231453m308dc972mdf624545794f398e@mail.gmail.com> <200906240006.10881.arnd@arndb.de> From: Mike Frysinger Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:11:42 -0400 Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0906231511nbac1a3cw1505a51fc2dd837d@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/17] Blackfin: convert to generic checksum code To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, Michal Simek , Paul Mundt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 18:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> and this is an internal tester ... if we're going to let arches >> override it, then its function signature are pretty much set in stone. >> i agree we should test every checksum function, but i think only >> testing do_csum indirectly would be detrimental to the people who >> would want to use this -- arch maintainers looking to implement >> do_csum() themselves.  otherwise they need to step through the >> surrounding functions a bit to find the exact values given to >> do_csum() and the exact value expected back such that the calling >> function still works.  and every arch guy is going to do this same >> thing. > > It depends on how we want to use it. If it's only for testing architecture > that have moved to the generic checksum code, that's fine. I was > thinking we could also use it for architectures that want to keep > their own code, but we don't have to. ah, i see what you're going for. how about we make testing of do_csum() dependent upon GENERIC_CSUM. that way we can satisfy everyone. any other suggestions for coming up with test vectors ? or i just extract a few more examples from flooding my board and call it a day. if someone complains a bug existed and current test vectors didnt cover it, then they should submit a new one. -mike