linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/12] bcache: move closures to lib/

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: <20190613110447.GA15110@kmo-pixel>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:04:47 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] bcache: move closures to lib/

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:28:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:14:18PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Prep work for bcachefs - being a fork of bcache it also uses closures
> 
> NAK.  This obsfucation needs to go away from bcache and not actually be
> spread further, especially not as an API with multiple users which will
> make it even harder to get rid of it.

Christoph, you've made it plenty clear how much you dislike closures in the past
but "I don't like it" is not remotely the kind of objection that is appropriate
or useful for technical discussions, and that's pretty much all you've ever
given.

If you really think that code should be gotten rid of, then maybe you should
actually _look at what they do that's not covered by other kernel
infrastructure_ and figure out something better. Otherwise... no one else seems
to care all that much about closures, and you're not actually giving any
technical feedback, so I'm not sure what you expect.