On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:46:58AM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 11:33:21PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:04:21AM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:58:33PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 12:52:25AM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > > > > > > 1) Our vaunted^Wshitty review process didn't catch various coding bugs, > > > > > > and testing didn't trip over them until I started (ab)using precommit > > > > > > hooks for spot checking of inode/dquot/buffer log items. > > > > > > > > > > You give little time for the review process. > > > > Seriously?! > > > > Metadir has been out for review in some form or another since January > > 2019[1]. If five years and eleven months is not sufficient for you to > > review a patchset or even to make enough noise that I'm aware that > > you're even reading my code, then I don't want you ever to touch any of > > my patchsets ever again. > > > > > > I don't really think that is true. But if you feel you need more time > > > > please clearly ask for it. I've done that in the past and most of the > > > > time the relevant people acted on it (not always). > > > > > > > > > > 2) Most of the metadir/rtgroups fixes are for things that hch reworked > > > > > > towards the end of the six years the patchset has been under > > > > > > development, and that introduced bugs. Did it make things easier for a > > > > > > second person to understand? Yes. > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > So you speak for other people here? > > > > > > No. I speak for myself. A lowly downstream developer. > > > > > > > > > > > > I call bullshit. You guys are fast and loose with your patches. Giving > > > > > little time for review and soaking. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure who "you" is, but please say what is going wrong and what > > > > you'd like to do better. > > > > > > You and Darrick. Can I be much clearer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becoming rather dodgy these days. Do things need to be this > > > > > > > complicated? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, they do. We left behind the kindly old world where people didn't > > > > > > feed computers fuzzed datafiles and nobody got fired for a computer > > > > > > crashing periodically. Nowadays it seems that everything has to be > > > > > > bulletproofed AND fast. :( > > > > > > > > > > Cop-out answer. > > > > > > > > What Darrick wrote feels a little snarky, but he has a very valid > > > > point. A lot of recent bug fixes come from better test coverage, where > > > > better test coverage is mostly two new fuzzers hitting things, or > > > > people using existing code for different things that weren't tested > > > > much before. And Darrick is single handedly responsible for a large > > > > part of the better test coverage, both due to fuzzing and specific > > > > xfstests. As someone who's done a fair amount of new development > > > > recently I'm extremely glad about all this extra coverage. > > > > > > > I think you are killing xfs with your fast and loose patches. > > > > Go work on the maintenance mode filesystems like JFS then. Shaggy would > > probably love it if someone took on some of that. > > No idea who "Shaggy" is. Nor do I care. > > > > > Downstreamers like me are having to clean up the mess you make of > > > things. > > > > What are you doing downstream these days, exactly? You don't > > participate in the LTS process at all, and your employer boasts about > > ignoring that community process. If your employer chooses to perform > > independent forklift upgrades of the XFS codebase in its product every > > three months and you don't like that, take it up with them, not > > upstream. Why are you such a nasty person? I try to get along with people, but you're impossible. I've been an engineer for 40+ years, and I've never encountered such an arrogant one as you. > > > > --D > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/154630934595.21716.17416691804044507782.stgit@magnolia/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
