From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 C82C01AAE09 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 07:30:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733383854; cv=none; b=EGB4PQiEuri9W3ta4nH3+dID9159ueXNKuAphBRr4ICPBUasFQL/sM8rvMI9rX1YIYZNYQh6yr51dfhGkf2RE1yGnu8H9WXtvaBIR9cZk7GlwWKtdxMFL6IORgg4hpzaheVJGsDAk4RUN34wwsf6L8NTxg0g0VDeILWOioAT8PA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733383854; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OlRNBUjASL7FVNGtWoyFFzTei7wVTiYRgktEzUrextU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jq6CGOejVRjPjEFSLcIhchtRRRqH4hXgavEe3M/FkcVIKMONB9BDf6oRsTsTV5yc12DeTiwlouFgzMhn81qiVMiKydaK9KE1F2t98S/UmbtaaAppm8l/0GcD4O2pYEwreVK6mSbWxczWJscUqNiqsARBqFhRqGXJlsBotDAqUOI= 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=hUOqu3po; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 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="hUOqu3po" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1733383851; 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=lgSEU4ckanSgk0HuuZW1mGMR1MCqcuQYAI+6N7Ir2cg=; b=hUOqu3pohP1qC38cAQIpIDNFDIs8lzv7K4uFVEMQTVkspui6ERhJELcBbO3cz7LOyag9bQ 2DSs//ZvOJh4YK7jDvbZyJ4RXrhyaOu4d5COKINe0rcjPOCrTBVc/4WcwJwwGn6z2kSQ47 7CVUENWeAwiPG8fkz+14M5p3q7zpSJs= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.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-47-TJwhZTnXMC6wBve6kCH3zA-1; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 02:30:48 -0500 X-MC-Unique: TJwhZTnXMC6wBve6kCH3zA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: TJwhZTnXMC6wBve6kCH3zA 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-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D445D1955DC8; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 07:30:46 +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 1517F1956054; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 07:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 01:30:42 -0600 From: Bill O'Donnell To: Bill O'Donnell Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@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 01:04:21AM -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. > > > > > >