From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (lichtvoll.de [37.120.160.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05B6D12FB1B; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732224977; cv=none; b=nswTDvCPEDlPjAwt8IK7srYU7gGS6iXdhXVoSaWRDa2Sjav6rB1WNEGar+Gzo3iR5Qss+h+rF7q8UGGFIoDyHoAo6OylnyKsAbFiaMSFiwmlSbTWkIKqGwrWnPtFePgNreVhE67o8ApEBuQ5VdKeFlhMhXK30W/NY4kCFa/2r1Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732224977; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qr8EncFIIAvG9tIgF5QxMs4376UrfnO8iYuvacIsgGw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=f7DHfjx9kvHf5V+9iTMBZKXuqwInxDVMEfIHIlSe5ITcw302J3qv4hTqOUYHeshInc5bNilpoi8zmjAHxpWsVMGpyEPj6OpiPgq0plCgzMVcdNcg/ZXVq1HN9JaPBn89Y/5iE+hWZGovtU/mQC0YI53XcEyzEy8FvwsGZtA1RIg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 975C08FC2D; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.lichtvoll.de; auth=pass smtp.auth=martin@lichtvoll.de smtp.mailfrom=martin@lichtvoll.de From: Martin Steigerwald To: Kent Overstreet , Shuah Khan Cc: Michal Hocko , Dave Chinner , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Yafang Shao , jack@suse.cz, Christian Brauner , Alexander Viro , Paul Moore , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "conduct@kernel.org" , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:26:38 +0100 Message-ID: <10576437.nUPlyArG6x@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: References: <9efc2edf-c6d6-494d-b1bf-64883298150a@linuxfoundation.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Shuah, hi everyone. Shuah, I appreciate your effort to resolve the Code of Conduct issue. Also I make no judgment about the technical matter at hand. Basically I do= =20 not even have a clear idea on what it is about. So I am just commenting on= =20 the Code of Conduct enforcement process: Shuah Khan - 20.11.24, 23:21:06 MEZ: > I didn't pick up on your desire to apologize after the discussion in > our conversation. >=20 > Are you saying you will be happy to make amends with an apology after > the discussion and debate? Do you really think that power-playing Kent into submission by doing a=20 public apology is doing anything good to resolve the issue at hand? While it may not really compare to some of the wording Linus has used=20 before having been convinced to change his behavior=E2=80=A6 I do not agree= with=20 the wording Kent has used. I certainly do not condone it. But this forced public apology approach in my point of view is very likely= =20 just to cement the division instead of heal it. While I publicly disagreed= =20 with Kent before, I also publicly disagree with this kind of Code of=20 Conduct enforcement. I have seen similar patterns within the Debian=20 community and in my point of view this lead to the loss of several Debian=20 developers who contributed a lot to the project while leaving behind=20 frustration and unresolved conflict. No amount of power play is going to resolve this. Just exercising=20 authority is not doing any good in here. This needs mediation, not forced=20 public humiliation. To me, honestly written, this whole interaction feels a bit like I'd=20 imagine children may be fighting over a toy. With a majority of the=20 children grouping together to single out someone who does not appear to fit= =20 in at first glance. I mean no offense with that. This is just the impressio= n=20 I got so far. The whole interaction just does not remind me of respectful=20 communication between adult human beings. I have seen it with myself=E2=80= =A6 in=20 situations where it was challenging for me to access what I learned, for=20 whatever reason, I had been acting similarly to a child. So really no=20 offense meant. This is just an impression I got and wanted to mirror back=20 to you for your consideration. I'd make three changes to the current approach regarding Kent's behavior: 1) Take it to private mediation. 2) Move it from mail to actually talking with one another. Resolving=20 conflicts by mail exchange is hard. Maybe voice / video chat. Or meeting in= =20 person, in case it possible. In other words: *Talk to each other*! Mail is= =20 really very bad for things like that. 3) Assume good intentions! And the best first step for everyone involved may just be: Take a deep=20 breath and let it sit for a while. Maybe there is something to learn from=20 this for everyone involved, including myself. I have and claim no standing in kernel community. So take this for=20 whatever it is worth for you. Best, =2D-=20 Martin