On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:00:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:51:09 -0500 > "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I know that you're trying to help us, but this tool needs to be far > > better than Lockdep before we should think about merging it. Even if > > it finds 5% more potential deadlocks, if it creates 95% more false > > positive reports --- and the ones it finds are crazy things that > > rarely actually happen in practice, are the costs worth the benefits? > > And who is bearing the costs, and who is receiving the benefits? > > I personally believe that there's potential that this can be helpful and we > will want to merge it. > > But, what I believe Ted is trying to say is, if you do not know if the > report is a bug or not, please do not ask the maintainers to determine it > for you. This is a good opportunity for you to look to see why your tool > reported an issue, and learn that subsystem. Look at if this is really a > bug or not, and investigate why. I agree with Steven here, to the point where I'm willing to invest some time being a beta-tester for this, so if you focus your efforts on filesystem/mm kinds of problems, I can continue looking at them and tell you what's helpful and what's unhelpful in the reports.
