Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling

James Bottomley
2023-05-03T15:49:37Z

On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 11:28 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:33:48AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 05:57 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 11:50:51AM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > > > If anyone ever wants to use this code tagging framework for
> > > > something else, they will also have to convert relevant
> > > > functions to macros, slowly changing the kernel to a minefield
> > > > where local identifiers, struct, union and enum tags, field
> > > > names and labels must avoid name conflict with a tagged
> > > > function. For now, I have to remember that alloc_pages is
> > > > forbidden, but the list may grow.
> > >
> > > Also, since you're not actually a kernel contributor yet...
> >
> > You have an amazing talent for being wrong.  But even if you were
> > actually right about this, it would be an ad hominem personal
> > attack on a new contributor which crosses the line into
> > unacceptable behaviour on the list and runs counter to our code of
> > conduct.
>
> ...Err, what? That was intended _in no way_ as a personal attack.

Your reply went on to say "If you're going to comment, please do the
necessary work to make sure you're saying something that makes sense."
That is a personal attack belittling the person involved and holding
them up for general contempt on the mailing list. This is exactly how
we should *not* treat newcomers.

> If I was mistaken I do apologize, but lately I've run across quite a
> lot of people offering review feedback to patches I post that turn
> out to have 0 or 10 patches in the kernel, and - to be blunt - a
> pattern of offering feedback in strong language with a presumption of
> experience that takes a lot to respond to adequately on a technical
> basis.

A synopsis of the feedback is that using macros to attach trace tags
pollutes the global function namespace of the kernel. That's a valid
observation and merits a technical not a personal response.

James