On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 11:28 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:33:48AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 05:57 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 11:50:51AM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote: > > > > If anyone ever wants to use this code tagging framework for > > > > something else, they will also have to convert relevant > > > > functions to macros, slowly changing the kernel to a minefield > > > > where local identifiers, struct, union and enum tags, field > > > > names and labels must avoid name conflict with a tagged > > > > function. For now, I have to remember that alloc_pages is > > > > forbidden, but the list may grow. > > > > > > Also, since you're not actually a kernel contributor yet... > > > > You have an amazing talent for being wrong. But even if you were > > actually right about this, it would be an ad hominem personal > > attack on a new contributor which crosses the line into > > unacceptable behaviour on the list and runs counter to our code of > > conduct. > > ...Err, what? That was intended _in no way_ as a personal attack. Your reply went on to say "If you're going to comment, please do the necessary work to make sure you're saying something that makes sense." That is a personal attack belittling the person involved and holding them up for general contempt on the mailing list. This is exactly how we should *not* treat newcomers. > If I was mistaken I do apologize, but lately I've run across quite a > lot of people offering review feedback to patches I post that turn > out to have 0 or 10 patches in the kernel, and - to be blunt - a > pattern of offering feedback in strong language with a presumption of > experience that takes a lot to respond to adequately on a technical > basis. A synopsis of the feedback is that using macros to attach trace tags pollutes the global function namespace of the kernel. That's a valid observation and merits a technical not a personal response. James
