From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.carlthompson.net (charon.carlthompson.net [45.77.7.122]) (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 2E83A2D6E66; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.77.7.122 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754936049; cv=none; b=BoOxC5q8TZpmRCCllgaYZxlTX0Y6xfjDIJX7rnK6XV/mVOPFmjrFFgp3R6HoYOFDUdR1iVk+WUebgoytgqyXJfjk6Qey/ciIh44/b81cxGC7iAb4PnZ9spJzUyTJXOoVhp/t/CcLFKkQhSGyCx1vteP8xl0AKrYxnOsDEPViq/k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754936049; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cxoFCFETBOccsLdMwv3sh9Um/zOuhvG93S2CSNiIWzA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=giYPVeQRDIHtVqmASBU+GL35FSAABeawanriJEBnltqVC+5d00RIyQvaclmcwwX5oorbemnfho+ee1BiB9K897NpKEleTGLL1+xV/wpLLAwVYfXo0T8hRW1eRv2SRL4iwSpAZ930dUODZcNI1LafgWBrbxh5gtDdG8JAvM6EJgo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=carlthompson.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=carlthompson.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.77.7.122 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=carlthompson.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=carlthompson.net Received: from mail.carlthompson.net (mail.home [10.35.20.252]) (Authenticated sender: cet@carlthompson.net) by smtp.carlthompson.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 775F11E3AE570; Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:13:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Carl E. Thompson" To: Kent Overstreet , Konstantin Shelekhin Cc: admin@aquinas.su, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, malte.schroeder@tnxip.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Message-ID: <514556110.413.1754936038265@mail.carlthompson.net> In-Reply-To: References: <3ik3h6hfm4v2y3rtpjshk5y4wlm5n366overw2lp72qk5izizw@k6vxp22uwnwa> <55e623db-ff03-4d33-98d1-1042106e83c6@ftml.net> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs changes for 6.17 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev73 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite I seriously hope none of the kernel developers are foolish enough to be foo= led (yet again) by this I'm-a-reasonable-guy-we-can-talk-this-out act. You'= ve been there and done that. Kent's perplexing behavior almost makes me want to put on a tinfoil hat. Is= it simply mental illness or is it something more? Is he being egged on by = backers who *want* to destabilize the leadership of Linux for whatever reas= on? It's hard to see how any individual could be this far out there without= help. And I'll point out what's obvious to people who have followed this closely = but may not be to people who read an occasional email thread like this one:= A very large portion of what Kent says including in this email is just fac= tually wrong. Either he is an unashamed and extremely prolific liar or he i= s very sick. Carl > On 2025-08-11 7:26 AM PDT Kent Overstreet wro= te: >=20 > =20 > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 12:51:11PM +0300, Konstantin Shelekhin wrote: > > > =C2=A0Yes, this is accurate. I've been getting entirely too many emai= ls from Linus about > > > how pissed off everyone is, completely absent of details - or anythin= g engineering > > > related, for that matter. > >=20 > > That's because this is not an engineering problem, it's a communication= problem. You just piss > > people off for no good reason. Then people get tired of dealing with yo= u and now we're here, > > with Linus thinking about `git rm -rf fs/bcachesfs`. Will your users be= happy? Probably not. > > Will your sponsors be happy? Probably not either. Then why are you keep= doing this? > >=20 > > If you really want to change the way things work go see a therapist. A = competent enough doctor > > probably can fix all that in a couple of months. >=20 > Konstantin, please tell me what you're basing this on. >=20 > The claims I've been hearing have simply lacked any kind of specifics; > if there's people I'd pissed off for no reason, I would've been happy to > apologize, but I'm not aware of the incidences you're claiming - not > within a year or more; I have made real efforts to tone things down. >=20 > On the other hand, for the only incidences I can remotely refer to in > the past year and a half, there has been: >=20 > - the mm developer who started outright swearing at me on IRC in a > discussion about assertions > - the block layer developer who went on a four email rant where he, > charitably, misread the spec or the patchset or both; all this over a > patch to simply bring a warning in line with the actual NVME and SCSI > specs. > - and reference to an incident at LSF, but the only noteworthy event > that I can recall at the last LSF (a year and a half ago) was where a > filesystem developer chased a Rust developer out of the community. >=20 > So: what am I supposed to make of all this? >=20 > To an outsider, I don't think any of this looks like a reasonable or > measured response, or professional behaviour. The problems with toxic > behaviour have been around long before I was prominent, and they're > still in evidence. >=20 > It is not reasonable or professional to jump from professional criticism > of code and work to personal attacks: it is our job to be critical of > our own and each other's code, and while that may bring up strong > feelings when we feel our work is attacked, that does not mean that it > is appropriate to lash out. >=20 > We have to separate the professional criticism from the personal. >=20 > It's also not reasonable or professional to always escelate tensions, > always look for the upper hand, and never de-escalate. >=20 > As a reminder, this all stems from a single patch, purely internal to > fs/bcachefs/, that was a critical, data integrity hotfix. >=20 > There has been a real pattern of hyper reactive, dramatic responses to > bugfixes in the bcachefs pull requests, all the way up to full blown > repeated threats of removing it from the kernel, and it's been toxic. >=20 > And it's happening again, complete with full blown rants right off the > bat in the private maintainer thread about not trusting my work (and I > have provided data and comparisons with btrfs specifically to rebut > that), all the way to "everyone hates you and you need therapy". That is > not reasonable or constructive. >=20 > This specific thread was in response to Linus saying that bcachefs was > imminently going to be git rm -rf'd, "or else", again with zero details > on that or else or anything that would make it actionable. >=20 > Look, I'm always happy to sit down, have a beer, talk things out, and > listen. >=20 > If there's people I have legitimately pissed off (and I do not include > anyone who starts swearing at me in a technical discussion) - let me > know, I'll listen. I'm not unapproachable, I'm not going to bite your > head off. >=20 > I've mended fences with people in the past; there were people I thought > I'd be odds with forever, but all it really takes is just talking. Say > what it is that you feel has affected, be willing to listen and turn, > and it gets better.