On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:25:07 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/6/20 7:08 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:58:50AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:08:36PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >> > > Yes. Doing an internal extension isn't testing the actual code. > >> > > >> > But it would. > >> > > >> > [...] > >> > > I don't think anything is needed for this series. It can be boot tested > >> > > manually. > >> > > >> > Why test it manually when it could be tested automatically with a new kconfig? > >> > >> So, my impression is that adding code to the internals to test the > >> internals isn't a valid test (or at least makes it fragile) because the > >> test would depend on the changes to the internals (or at least depend on > >> non-default non-production CONFIGs). > > > > The *internal* aspect here is an extension to boot params under a > > kconfig which would simply append to it, as if the user would have > > So there's no such kconfig yet to apply boot parameters specified by configure, > right? That would itself be a new feature. Or could we use bootconfig? (CC Masami) Yes, I think you can use bootconfig to add this feature more flexibly. I think your patch is easily modified to use bootconfig. :) Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
