Re: [PATCHSET v2] xfs: proposed bug fixes for 6.13

Bill O'Donnell
2024-12-05T07:04:30Z

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.
>
> 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. Downstreamers
like me are having to clean up the mess you make of things.

>