Re: [PATCH 05/17] Blackfin: convert to generic checksum code

[Mike Frysinger]

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. Âotherwise 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. Âand 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/