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

Bill O'Donnell
2024-12-05T07:30:52Z

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.
> >
> > 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.
>
scrub is the worst offender. What the hell is it, and why do you insist its imortance?

> >
> > > 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.
>
>
> >
>
>