linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert

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:	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:29:14 -0800
From:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/31/2015 01:00 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >Linus, please pull; this reverts a patch from Jens that was committed without
> >CCing be or being mailed out to any of the lists. Said patch wasn't in any way a
> >functional change and is something that damn well should have been discussed.
> >
> >Jens - what the goddamn fuck!? You've never touched the bcache code until now,
> >and when you finally get interested this is what you do!?
> >
> >While I am sympathetic to the arguments in favor of your patch, there _are_ some
> >damn good reasons I did it the way I did. If you want to have that discussion,
> >feel free to mail your patch out again after the revert.
> 
> The patch was part of a larger series that I was working on, and I just
> wanted to flush out that dependency. Christoph review and acked it, it was
> by no means a sneaking in of a patch.

I didn't see it until I went to rebase bcachefs onto 4.2 this morning. I triple
checked; this patch is not in any mailing list archive. And you certainly didn't
try to contact me. How is that _not_ sneaking it in?

> So calm down. Is there a bug? The previous code was crap, having hidden
> returns in macros is horrible. The upstream bcache code has been effectively
> unmaintained for more than a year, and THIS patch is now a problem? Get
> real.

Oh, so you're taking over now? This is the first I've heard of it...

You may say the previous code was crap, but believe it or not I'm not an idiot
and I had real reasons for doing it that way. For damn sure if you want to start
changing stuff like this now it shouldn't be too much to ask that you _mail the
patch out_ so it can be discussed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/