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  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, 9 Nov 2017 13:52:27 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bough Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
        Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>,
        Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@...el.com>,
        Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@...disk.com>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
        Das Asutosh <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...il.com>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
        Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@...eaurora.org>,
        Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 08/10] mmc: block: blk-mq: Separate card polling from recovery

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/17 11:30, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recovery is simpler to understand if it is only used for errors. Create a
>>> separate function for card polling.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
>>
>> This looks good but I can't see why it's not folded into
>> patch 3 already. This error handling is introduced there.
>
> What are you on about?

You are attacking your most valuable resource, a reviewer.

And I even said the patch looks good.

The only thing you attain with this kind of langauge is alienante
me and discourage others to review your patch set. You also
give your employer a bad name, since you are representing
them.

> If we're going to split up the patches (which I
> argued against - the new code is all new, so it could be read independently
> from the old mess) then this is a logically distinct step.  Polling and
> error-recovery are conceptually different things and it is important to
> separate them to make the code easier to understand.

I understand it can be tough to deal with review comments
and it can make you loose your temper when people (sometimes
even the same person!) say contradictory things.

But in hindsight, don't you think these 5 last lines of your message
had been enough without that first line?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Powered by blists - more mailing lists