From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 AC472227E9F; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:34:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739446465; cv=none; b=M12LOT8rG0cPRN1jCp6TMM9I0nur3JK1CIV0IFl76v919qNUZTbb7TlOg7ivCEv586sOIQeKIgXCyvpV4J5pepOxrMg9Uf3yhWjwzSerjmqKzQ24zGF64sDrE+0PYSxDFOs/dvPpe2fZUK0xqzwY06oWomLFmmC2MrBEzO8/Ccc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739446465; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OiHvXcKA8YEFpd9Ho+xwvuJZYb/UQvHhXv95Idt26nk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZghI0fVQogNTdDiyTkxCZv3bMvkPH75jlnfRskDWpI4QBg3RL88O0GlHmV3dxjQCyI8ziowdEAW0HSz6WZFvbGSjp9Wx6QwQXHTjJG5Owi4tM8GlW9nPbIFCGq/eoMT/0Zo8QkNj0uDus0jvzsTNuxvUys7m09VopoX9w/IYr1k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VH9KUzDf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VH9KUzDf" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C6D1C4CED1; Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:34:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1739446465; bh=OiHvXcKA8YEFpd9Ho+xwvuJZYb/UQvHhXv95Idt26nk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VH9KUzDf56JrzQWwxUKQHMH8PhlT80HnzwC6f0hEa7xiJQCHJbsULUpCwdDCBmV9p 4/RNBZyLaNjWHoVMUjVajSj9gH1Fjn5HgF4y3mdZ6iAF/ljFCqjAzP5hOKD9mM9FES vbL3Sbr9Dl8VCdvhKsBYjFsZkoCO2mpjKWF5iDY1LgoMpz5x+ayMB//WKs2t7Gw0rF gOw8MspHlbKYeHnFl1/SRW2OXQkGeacM8F+lv8uX8THx9WHxBHO7D9Vf2zUs3F4cbp WXXJHtTBlik1+ymnomlNF/nEwUaqr3nF7dfBnPFS9gnSL06jeFRCYBvVdCcpub70k+ 0UNM8tgqXONtQ== Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:34:16 +0100 From: Danilo Krummrich To: Icenowy Zheng Cc: Hector Martin , Steven Rostedt , "Dr. Greg" , Linus Torvalds , Dave Airlie , Jason Gunthorpe , Greg KH , phasta@kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Miguel Ojeda , Abdiel Janulgue , daniel.almeida@collabora.com, aliceryhl@google.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda , Alex Gaynor , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , Bj??rn Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Trevor Gross , Valentin Obst , open list , Marek Szyprowski , airlied@redhat.com, "open list:DMA MAPPING HELPERS" , DRI Development Subject: Re: On community influencing (was Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.) Message-ID: References: <208e1fc3-cfc3-4a26-98c3-a48ab35bb9db@marcan.st> <20250207121638.GA7356@wind.enjellic.com> <1e8452ab-613a-4c85-adc0-0c4a293dbf50@marcan.st> <07c447b77bdac1f8ade1f93456f853f89d4842ee.camel@icenowy.me> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:49:20AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > 在 2025-02-10星期一的 11:24 +0100，Danilo Krummrich写道： > > > > (Additionally, in this particular case even one of the reviewers of > > DMA MAPPING HELPERS offered to be a reviewer of the Rust abstractions > > too, in > > order to keep eye on the DMA API angle.) > > Sorry, but I did a fact check on this, and I found that the only > "reviewer" of DMA MAPPING HELPERS is Robin Murphy, he has only one > reply in this thread, and the reply only says "Indeed, FWIW it seems > like the appropriate level of abstraction to me, > judging by the other wrappers living in rust/kernel/ already", he > didn't offer to be a reviewer, As Abdiel pointed out already, he did offer it in [1]. But that's not the relevant part, but I think how you handled being in doubt is relevant. I think the correct way would have been to just ask for a pointer that proves the statement in question. Instead you just went ahead with the big words "fact check" and then even got it wrong. In your "fact check" you did not put any disclaimer to e.g. indicate that you might not have the full picture, etc. Ultimately, the way you replied to this, comes across as an immediate accuse of lying. I really think that we should *not* pick up this way of arguing that nowadays became all too present. - Danilo [1] https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/4956d01e-2d06-4edd-813b-9da94b482069@arm.com/