Re: [PATCHSET v2] xfs: proposed bug fixes for 6.13

[Bill O'Donnell <bodonnel@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 09:39:42AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 02:02:00AM -0600, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I have to step in here, sorry.
> 
> Please take a beat and relax and maybe get some sleep before you respond
> again.  Darrick is not being "nasty" here at all, but reiterating the
> fact that your company does do huge fork-lifts of code into their kernel
> tree.  If that development model doesn't work for you, please work with
> your company to change it.
> 
> And if you wish to help out here, please do so by reviewing and even
> better yet, testing, the proposed changes.  If you can't just suck down
> a patch series and put it into your test framework with a few
> keystrokes, perhaps that needs to be worked on to make it simpler to do
> from your side (i.e. that's what most of us do here with our development
> systems.)
> 
> By critisizing the mere posting of bugfixes, you aren't helping anything
> out at all, sorry.  Bugfixes are good, I don't know why you don't want
> even more, that means that people are testing and finding issues to fix!
> Surely you don't want the people finding the issues to be your users,
> right?
> 
> thanks,

Thank you for putting this in a better perspective.
-Bill

> 
> greg k-h
>