On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 02:02:00AM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > > 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. > > I have to step in here, sorry. > > Please take a beat and relax and maybe get some sleep before you respond > again. Darrick is not being "nasty" here at all, but reiterating the > fact that your company does do huge fork-lifts of code into their kernel > tree. If that development model doesn't work for you, please work with > your company to change it. > > And if you wish to help out here, please do so by reviewing and even > better yet, testing, the proposed changes. If you can't just suck down > a patch series and put it into your test framework with a few > keystrokes, perhaps that needs to be worked on to make it simpler to do > from your side (i.e. that's what most of us do here with our development > systems.) > > By critisizing the mere posting of bugfixes, you aren't helping anything > out at all, sorry. Bugfixes are good, I don't know why you don't want > even more, that means that people are testing and finding issues to fix! > Surely you don't want the people finding the issues to be your users, > right? > > thanks, Thank you for putting this in a better perspective. -Bill > > greg k-h >
