From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752850AbbHaUrw (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:47:52 -0400 Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:36246 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752033AbbHaUrv (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:47:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert To: Kent Overstreet References: <20150831190050.GC27538@kmo-pixel> <55E4A77F.7030802@fb.com> <20150831192914.GA1854@kmo-pixel> <55E4AE1A.1040909@fb.com> <20150831195305.GA2822@kmo-pixel> <55E4B3CB.2070106@fb.com> <20150831201752.GA17059@kmo-pixel> <55E4B835.5070309@fb.com> <20150831204231.GA17467@kmo-pixel> CC: , From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <55E4BD71.9020109@fb.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:47:45 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150831204231.GA17467@kmo-pixel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.54.13] X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe X-FB-Internal: Safe X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2015-08-31_05:2015-08-31,2015-08-31,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/31/2015 02:42 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 02:25:25PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Kent, can we cut down on the victim playing? I said it should have been >> posted, did I not? And usually patches like that ARE always posted, but this >> beat the series of patches that it was a pre-patch for. Hence it just didn't >> get posted, and that was a mistake, after a private discussion where it >> ended up being cherry-picked for inclusion. Even for a trivial patch like >> this. But it's not the end of the world, it's not like I rewrote your >> architecture or grand caching design. > > You're backpedalling and trying not to admit it. Look, would you do it again or > not? Because yes of course I'm going to call you out on it if you think this is > an acceptable thing to do, which is certainly what you started off saying. Kent, this is starting to get into playground territory. Should it have been posted/cc'ed to you? Yes. Do I think it's a big deal that it wasn't, given the nature of the patch? No. Is/was the patch the right thing to do? Yes. >> Grow up. We should revert a patch cleaning up macros with returns in them, >> but you won't really let us in on why? >> >> Unless we can turn this into a REAL (and technical) discussion on why we >> should revert to the old code, I'm done spending time on this thread. > > Because what's the point of having a technical discussion if you're checking in > code behind my back, and you refuse to say you won't do so again in the future? Get to the point. > And calling it "just a cleanup" is disingenuous. You're making a real semantic > change to the code, which never mind the pros and cons of the patch itself, > means I have now have to rebase ~1000 patches on top of it and it will _silently > break, in a nasty way_ any patches that make use of closures - you just made > a lot of work for me, especially if I want to keep my tree bisectable. > > You remember how patches are supposed to go through the maintainer? This is part > of the reason. Are you starting to see why I'm in such a bad mood? You still forgot the part where you explained the very good reasons for the why the code looked like that. -- Jens Axboe