From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECE0C433FE for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:19:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242814AbiBYQTi (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:19:38 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46904 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242816AbiBYQTh (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:19:37 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DB845469B; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 08:19:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 6A06F68AA6; Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:19:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:19:02 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Keith Busch Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com, colyli@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 07/10] lib: add crc64 tests Message-ID: <20220225161902.GA14059@lst.de> References: <20220222163144.1782447-1-kbusch@kernel.org> <20220222163144.1782447-8-kbusch@kernel.org> <20220225160509.GE13610@lst.de> <20220225161259.GA4111669@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220225161259.GA4111669@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:12:59AM -0800, Keith Busch wrote: > I don't have experience with kunit, but I'll look into that. > > I am already changing the way this gets tested. Eric recommended adding > to the crypto "testmgr", and I've done that on my private tree. That > test framework exercises a lot more than this this patch, and it did > reveal a problem with how I've implemented the initial XOR when the > buffer is split, so I have some minor updates coming soon. I guess if we exercise the algorithm through that we don't really need another low-level test anyway, right?