From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 12:03:11 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20230501165450.15352-1-surenb@google.com> <20230503115051.30b8a97f@meshulam.tesarici.cz> <25a1ea786712df5111d7d1db42490624ac63651e.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1683129803; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MZ0TWwv0Mpu9IjWcxRCWjJEEQ++kpZPmKK/VcTJkl7k=; b=FpGctQbM8W0rfqOGZOmSKFnYLpxrclq3L7E+rrXnS/9nXRbb9R5M7EzAN6wvhioCICdsHM WM800GTR3zcYRzwg97hBrpkz/9ZsEWI3RL80N/2zwrpf92rM0McRD43/F36Q+ZHI2sCc0L g2qQO4EQowCmjkSmuSEX+YK+w94lB2M= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: James Bottomley , Petr =?utf-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?= , Michal Hocko , Suren Baghdasaryan , akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, mgorman@suse.de, dave@stgolabs.net, willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, corbet@lwn.net, void@manifault.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, ldufour@linux.ibm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, mcgrof@kernel.org, masahiroy@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, pa On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:37:36PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > As an outside observer, I can assure you that absolutely came across as a > personal attack, and the precise kind that puts people off from > contributing. I should know as a hobbyist contributor myself. > > > 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. > > > > I, who may very well not merit being considered a contributor of > significant merit in your view, have had such 'drive-by' commentary on some > of my patches by precisely this type of person, and at no time felt the > need to question whether they were a true Scotsman or not. It's simply not > productive. > > > I don't think a suggestion to spend a bit more time reading code instead > > of speculating is out of order! We could all, put more effort into how > > we offer review feedback. > > It's the means by which you say it that counts for everything. If you feel > the technical comments might not be merited on a deeper level, perhaps ask > a broader question, or even don't respond at all? There are other means > available. > > It's remarkable the impact comments like the one you made can have on > contributors, certainly those of us who are not maintainers and are > naturally plagued with imposter syndrome, so I would ask you on a human > level to try to be a little more considerate. > > By all means address technical issues as robustly as you feel appropriate, > that is after all the purpose of code review, but just take a step back and > perhaps find the 'cuddlier' side of yourself when not addressing technical > things :) Thanks for your reply, it's level headed and appreciated. But I personally value directness, and I see quite a few people in this thread going all out on the tone policing - but look, without the directness the confusion (that Petr is not actually a new contributor) never would've been cleared up. Food for thought, perhaps?