From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 411421CEAD8 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733385734; cv=none; b=IsG0mBRfwG/UZMtfa2UKKyCBFe0FRDXMDki7HYQzGWe79jSTY/bJNEs7ZkbRMifndbPWl6ctocmGYuI6funL3sBCJibPFsPhmaaLG+7oP3/Oe9dftEdkGsYZMQO9jzYatI6jvkHVo9u5wKGggUIZjXXPhGqVr0MjMudGLTMQuDA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733385734; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hO00Dr1dme1t1unZazvpqhnvblTefko9CDhaW1ixDfw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dx2g8GduFUT5daHbxxonlQ2Z5PJVHr+OT9tj6wcfKtIyrH80INV6MaYz9r3xT6BtqFK1f8gwWNS5lRNZ/gtbfem39nIy5CtKnt67QsRfDKce6sBHGe88TQJg6zY+Mb0iT7B0VHukQiY9qCV5vTPp7y3D7XOSEtCiZWmvqL186M8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=GOTZlaJf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="GOTZlaJf" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1733385732; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=j3gOfxpC6UvqrylAsdrtGPVf0KluTNfjaNeutsqYjOI=; b=GOTZlaJfiZ2yyOFPemXIzd+92K4qTjwMpoMiQIw63F/yB387Y1kO3+TZTVhNe0dvhA/lhd KiONKeeu0e6fnxDUE1L0X4w7SE1xfewfBpRyNLmgyZncBSAYaxdUKs2MxDNpB6/unIRvzY H9goHeOZ2gOI1Keqz4KRKrkXSohq62I= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-692-L9svg-vfNI6FF0_Lbs7I7g-1; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 03:02:06 -0500 X-MC-Unique: L9svg-vfNI6FF0_Lbs7I7g-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: L9svg-vfNI6FF0_Lbs7I7g Received: from mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 677DE1956063; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:02:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.22.64.4]) by mx-prod-int-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C2291956054; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:02:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 02:02:00 -0600 From: Bill O'Donnell To: Bill O'Donnell Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , cem@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, jlayton@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v2] xfs: proposed bug fixes for 6.13 Message-ID: References: <173328106571.1145623.3212405760436181793.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20241205064243.GD7837@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20241205073321.GH7837@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@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: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:46:58AM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote: > 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. > > No idea who "Shaggy" is. Nor do I care. > > > > > 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. Why are you such a nasty person? I try to get along with people, but you're impossible. I've been an engineer for 40+ years, and I've never encountered such an arrogant one as you. > > > > --D > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/154630934595.21716.17416691804044507782.stgit@magnolia/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >