On Tue, Jun 20, 2023, at 11:08 AM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:42:02AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Code is either correct, and comes with an explanation as to how it is >> correct, or it doesn't go in. Saying that something is like BPF is >> not an explanation as to how it's correct. Saying that someone has >> not come up with the chain of events that causes a mere violation of >> architecture rules to actual incorrect execution is not an explanation >> as to how something is correct. > > No, I'm saying your concerns are baseless and too vague to address. If you don't address them, the NAK will stand forever, or at least until a different group of people take over x86 maintainership. That's fine with me. I'm generally pretty happy about working with people to get their Linux code right. But no one is obligated to listen to me. > >> text_poke() by itself is *not* the proper API, as discussed. It >> doesn't serialize adequately, even on x86. We have text_poke_sync() >> for that. > > Andy, I replied explaining the difference between text_poke() and > text_poke_sync(). It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, > so I'm not going to be wasting my time on further communications with > you. No problem. Then your x86 code will not be merged upstream. Best of luck with the actual filesystem parts! --Andy
