From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>, Ian Taylor <iant@google.com>,
Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
kirill.yukhin@intel.com, Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: acceptance rules (was: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping ...)
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOo9a=A3kOoY-hrg4WhMp7vOXmd3B3X6+GmrYgJVgsx1oQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52551EA202000078000F9D92@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08.10.13 at 18:19, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I prefer a testcase together with the corresponding change,
>> instead of a jumbo testcase patch. I also don't agree every
>> MPX change you proposed. If it makes it easier to write
>> testcases, you can use a separate testcase file for each
>> change.
>
> Okay, so then I'll submit a monolithic patch combined with the
> testcase changes (once we sorted out eventual adjustments).
> Separate testcase files is not a desirable approach imo - what
> belongs together should stay together. As additional context:
> Getting the existing test case straightened took me significantly
> more time than fixing the actual bugs here, and I simply don't
You can open a bug report to report the issue
against the existing testcase.
> see myself wasting more time on this unless there's a _good_
> reason.
>
> And just to repeat - I'm very opposed to the idea of rejecting
> bug fixes just because of controversy about test cases. This
> isn't happening the first time (and is also not isolated to you as
> the x86 maintainer). I very much think that bug fixes ought to
> be acceptable in any case, and test cases ought to be optional.
> I can see this being more strict for enhancements, and even a
> requirement for new feature additions.
If a patch changes the assembler behavior, it should
be verified via a testcase to make sure that it does
what it is intended and stays that way.
> Yet in no case should - imo - badly written test cases be
> accepted just because this is better than no test case at all.
> But of course I realize that there's no guideline (or at least I'm
> unaware of there being any) on how a good test case would
> look like (my main requirements would be that they (a) don't
> test things to be valid that aren't and (b) use patterns instead
> of exact matches where precise values don't matter so that
> they can be extended without having to entirely replace them).
If a testcase, which is supposed to pass, contains invalid
instructions, we should just fix it. If you notice any issue
within binutils, including testcases, just open a bug report
against it. At least, there is a trail.
Thanks for your contribution.
--
H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-09 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-08 14:36 [PATCH 0/6] x86: various MPX fixes Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 14:41 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86/MPX: testsuite adjustments Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 14:41 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86/MPX: fix address size handling Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 15:15 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-08 15:20 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 15:32 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-09 7:30 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-09 15:45 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-10 12:27 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-10 15:18 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-08 14:42 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping in Intel mode for bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 15:16 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-08 15:23 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 15:34 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-08 16:00 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 16:19 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-09 7:15 ` acceptance rules (was: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/MPX: suppress base/index swapping ...) Jan Beulich
2013-10-09 16:45 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2013-10-08 14:43 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86/MPX: bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx only allow a memory operand Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 15:28 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-09 7:24 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-09 15:17 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-08 14:43 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86/MPX: fix operand size handling Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 15:45 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-09 7:36 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-09 15:51 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-10 13:14 ` Jan Beulich
2013-10-10 15:14 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-12 15:58 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-12 17:12 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-08 14:44 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86/MPX: bndmk, bndldx, and bndstx don't allow RIP-relative addressing Jan Beulich
2013-10-08 16:13 ` H.J. Lu
2013-10-09 7:40 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMe9rOo9a=A3kOoY-hrg4WhMp7vOXmd3B3X6+GmrYgJVgsx1oQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=amodra@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=iant@google.com \
--cc=kirill.yukhin@intel.com \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
--cc=rth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).