From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from swift.blarg.de (swift.blarg.de [138.201.185.127]) (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 0028630CDB4; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 22:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=138.201.185.127 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756248834; cv=none; b=IBe9HGxeAgT8G8+pyIeY15QX3KIjYj2olQvTaMHoaGoms6vyUUtI7+06pwphZiBaFG6NTXcwklzjXBMcFHsR+ZpjloiwlWb+u9mJbtxjux0rI2FNaaTQ9uofuhvjUb0C7K3qAaSBr7f189xZGvlbBQRmtsqk6acprNUqB9DYELQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756248834; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WJ8xk8Hzpo1e/n1NboDi3ScR24dGBtVGs2sLNxkIkRk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cFVUc+M5lBvBmhs5wUGIg1pmks1dNBLdLcXUkvZxAC8jdCxw335n8oU+8g9lmE2jU1YgoSfh8gk6c2Swfc4G8QBzEkYqm0MiVt1tFXD/TmY9lMS0ryG0qYDvkYpwSMZzzvMvlBgM8rXKc0UGIvqcIsgrEhxrrEGjwqdQ9kqyx04= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=blarg.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=blarg.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=138.201.185.127 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=blarg.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=blarg.de Received: from swift.blarg.de (swift.blarg.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c17:52a8::2]) (Authenticated sender: max) by swift.blarg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83A3440230; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:53:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 00:53:49 +0200 From: Max Kellermann To: Viacheslav Dubeyko Cc: "brauner@kernel.org" , Patrick Donnelly , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "slava@dubeyko.com" , David Howells , Alex Markuze , "willy@infradead.org" , "idryomov@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] ceph: introduce ceph_submit_write() method Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Viacheslav Dubeyko , "brauner@kernel.org" , Patrick Donnelly , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "slava@dubeyko.com" , David Howells , Alex Markuze , "willy@infradead.org" , "idryomov@gmail.com" References: <20250205000249.123054-1-slava@dubeyko.com> <20250205000249.123054-4-slava@dubeyko.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 2025/08/27 00:33, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > Of course, we can revert any patch. This patchset has been sent not with the > goal of pure refactoring but it fixes several bugs. Reverting means returning > these bugs back. You should have listened of Matthew and submit separate minimal bug-fixing patches instead of posting huge patches which move code around, change semantics and hidden somewhere deep within fix some bug (and then introduce new bugs). > This patchset was available for review for a long time. There was exactly one review, and no, you were not "happy to rework and to make any patch more better" - you openly rejected Matthew's review. > From my point of view, reverting is not answer and it makes sense to > continue fix bugs and to make CephFS code more stable. Your argument only appears to sound right, but it is detached from the reality I'm living in. Your patches made Ceph less stable. 6.14 had one Ceph-related crash every other week, but 6.15 with your patches made all servers crash within hours. The point is: the Linux kernel was better without your patches. Your patches may have fixed a bug, but have introduced a dozen new bugs, including one that very quickly crashes the whole kernel, one that was really obvious enough, just nobody cared enough to read deeply enough after you rejected Matthew's review. Too bad no maintainer stopped you! Of course, the bug that was fixed by your patch set should be fixed - but not the way you did it. Every aspect of your approach to fixing the bug was bad. The best way forward for you would be to revert this patch set and write a minimal patch that only fixes the bug. If you want to be helpful here, please give this a try. Max