linux-kernel - Re: [driver-core PATCH v6 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node

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: <20181113221014.GB2235@amd>
Date:   Tue, 13 Nov 2018 23:10:14 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, rafael@...nel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
        zwisler@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
        bvanassche@....org
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v6 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on
 specific NUMA node

Hi!

> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > No one else from Intel has reviewed/verified this code at all?
> > > 
> > > Please take advantages of the resources you have that most people do
> > > not, get reviewes from your coworkers please before you send this out
> > > again, as they can give you valuable help before the community has to
> > > review the code...
> > 
> > We always said to companies we want to see code as soon as
> > possible. You don't have to review their code, but discouraging the
> > posting seems wrong.
> 
> I have a long history of Intel using me for their basic "find the
> obvious bugs" review process for new driver subsystems and core changes.
> When I see new major patches show up from an Intel developer without
> _any_ other review from anyone else, directed at me, I get suspicious it
> is happening again.
> 
> If you note, Intel is the _only_ company I say this to their developers
> because of this problem combined with the fact that they have a whole
> load of developers that they should be running things by first.
> 
> And yes, to answer Dan's point, we do want to do review in public.  But
> this is v6 of a core patchset and there has been NO review from anyone
> else at Intel on this.  So if that review was going to happen, one would
> have thought it would have by now, instead of relying on me to do it.
> 
> And yes, I am grumpy, but I am grumpy because of the history here.  I am
> not trying to discourage anything, only to take ADVANTAGE of resources
> that almost no other company provides.
> 
> Hope this helps explain my statement here.

Thanks for explanation. I did not have same bad experience with Intel,
so I did not understand what was going on.

Best regards,

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)