linux-kernel - Re: + x86-add-support-for-pud-sized-transparent-hugepages-checkpatch-fixes.patch added to -mm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:37:50 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: +
 x86-add-support-for-pud-sized-transparent-hugepages-checkpatch-fixes.patch
 added to -mm tree


* Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:08:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > I have no idea what it means.  This is copy-and-change of the pmd version,
> > > which was originally commit db3eb96f4e6281b84dd33c8980dacc27f2efe177 by
> > > Andrea.
> > 
> > It means that we don't want to copy-and-change a crappy comment that slipped 
> > through 5 years ago, we want to copy-and-improve. I even suggested the comment 
> > improvement (which needs to be checked though).
> 
> The "it" in my sentence referred to the comment.  I have no idea what
> the comment is supposed to mean.  I am the worst person to figure out
> what the comment is supposed to mean as I have the least experience with
> the code here.
> 
> The PUD and PMD code should be as similar as possible, down to the
> comments and the spacing.  If you want the original fixed, that's fine,
> and I'm willing to include it as part of this patch set.  But it's not
> my responsibility to fix up the comments that you don't like.
> 
> > > It seems unfair to ask me to do better than what is there right now.
> > 
> > It's absolutely fair for maintainers to require the improvement of existing code 
> > you want to modify, especially when you are complicating existing code ...
> 
> I'm not complicating it.  I'm duplicating it.

I don't think your language lawyering is particularly constructive: you are adding 
new functionality to existing x86 code, and as such you need to address review 
feedback from x86 maintainers - even if it involves old code.

( There's an obvious maintainability threshold concern behind such requests from 
  maintainers: existing bad practices in old code accumulate, and the code can
  bear only so much complexity, so there's a level over which we require cleanups 
  to existing code before we accept new changes. )

This is nothing new, this happens all the time, it's a routine review practice 
when new patches are applied.

Anyway, until my concerns are addressed the x86 bits are NAK-ed:

  NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo