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

Bill O'Donnell
2024-12-05T07:40:24Z

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 11:33:21PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:04:21AM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Seriously?!
>
> Metadir has been out for review in some form or another since January
> 2019[1]. If five years and eleven months is not sufficient for you to
> review a patchset or even to make enough noise that I'm aware that
> you're even reading my code, then I don't want you ever to touch any of
> my patchsets ever again.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Go work on the maintenance mode filesystems like JFS then. Shaggy would
> probably love it if someone took on some of that.
>
> > Downstreamers like me are having to clean up the mess you make of
> > things.
>
> What are you doing downstream these days, exactly? You don't
> participate in the LTS process at all, and your employer boasts about
> ignoring that community process. If your employer chooses to perform
> independent forklift upgrades of the XFS codebase in its product every
> three months and you don't like that, take it up with them, not
> upstream.

Thanks for your reply. You win.

>
> --D
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/154630934595.21716.17416691804044507782.stgit@magnolia/
>
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>