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]

Message-ID: <20150831201752.GA17059@kmo-pixel>
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:17:52 -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 02:06:35PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/31/2015 01:53 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 08/31/2015 01:29 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >>>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?
> >>
> >>It's a simple cleanup patch, against a dormant driver. It was reviewed by
> >>Christoph, which is as good as it gets. Yes, it should have been posted, but
> >>it's not like we are talking about a rewrite or anything of that magnitude.
> >>You're grossly overreacting. I would do it again.
> >
> >Look, you've had your own periods as an unavailable maintainer so I wouldn't
> >throw stones - and it's no secret that I'm still working on bcache.
> 
> I am not throwing stones, just stating the upstream bcache has been dormant
> for more than a year.

Dormant, because I was thoroughly overstressed with being the only one doing any
of the work compounded with a shitty startup situation. I've always been
available and responsible to people who were trying to help out. Really, I would
love to have other people working on the bcache code, and I'd be happy to spend
time on the phone or whatever to explain anything I can.

> >Really, as long as you think it's ok to commit patches without CCing the mailing
> >list _or_ the maintainer, then fuck you. I wouldn't do that to you and I don't
> >know anyone else who would, so as long as that's your attitude about it there's
> >really nothing to discuss.
> 
> I already said that, yes, it should have been posted. But it's not like it
> was unreviewed. Or a massive change, by any stretch.

And then you said you'd do it again.

Look, it's about extending a basic courtesy - other people I work with have no
issue with this. Tejun still pings me and lets me know about percpu refcount
changes even though he's taken over as maintainer of that code since almost
after I wrote it. Similarly with most anyone else I've worked with in the kernel
community. I've always put quite a bit of effort into making sure I don't miss
anyone on my CC lists when I was doing work in the block layer that touched all
kinds of code.

Why not you?

> And we're still not discussing the motives for why it looked like that in
> the first place?

Not terribly interested in doing that after the fact, when you've already
bypassed me and gotten your patch in, and you're still saying you'd do it again.
Sorry, I'm not having the discussion on those terms.
--
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/