linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V13 08/10] mmc: block: blk-mq: Separate card polling from recovery

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 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.