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 <>
To:     Linus Walleij <>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <>,
        linux-mmc <>,
        linux-block <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Bough Chen <>,
        Alex Lemberg <>,
        Mateusz Nowak <>,
        Yuliy Izrailov <>,
        Jaehoon Chung <>,
        Dong Aisheng <>,
        Das Asutosh <>,
        Zhangfei Gao <>,
        Sahitya Tummala <>,
        Harjani Ritesh <>,
        Venu Byravarasu <>,
        Shawn Lin <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 08/10] mmc: block: blk-mq: Separate card polling from

On 09/11/17 14:52, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Adrian Hunter <> wrote:
>> On 08/11/17 11:30, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <> 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 <>
>>> 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