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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 15:02:04 +0200 From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> 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 09/11/17 14:52, Linus Walleij wrote: > 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. 6 months of being messed around will do that. >> 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? Very true.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists