linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: don't check the nid in find_(smallest|biggest)_section

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: <657e4a9d-767d-5140-a4f4-d963794cdf0c@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:03:43 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: don't check the nid in
 find_(smallest|biggest)_section_pfn

>>
>> But believe me, the world won't end if your on vacation for a couple of
>> weeks, even though some BUGs could sneak in ... e.g., lately I try to
>> review as much as I can on the MM list (and Michal is steadily watching
>> out as well).
> 
> Sure, the world will still be running, but good luck on solely rely on reviewing with bare eyes before merging.

That's why we have linux-next and plenty of people playing with it
(including you and me for example).

> 
>>
>> The solution to your problem is more review and testing, really. E.g.,
>> I'd be very happy if other developers would test their patches more
>> thoroughly and if there would be more review activity on the MM list in
>> general (my patches barely get any review ... and I sent a lot of fixes
>> lately).
> 
> Of course, that helps but it is a culture that very difficult to change now. How many times I saw even high-profile developers proudly sent out patches labeled “no testing” explicitly and implicitly ?
>

That is a different story, and I do agree that we should be more careful
with such things. Personally, I test whatever I send upstream - as long
as there is a way for me to test. We can only change this culture slowly
- but frankly speaking "no small cleanups" is just the wrong approach to
this problem.

[...]

>> BTW: [1] mentions "unbalanced software development culture with regard
>> to quality vs quantity that supplies an endless stream of bugs". I don't
>> agree to this statement. There will *always* be an endless stream of
>> BUGs - and most of them come from new features and performance
>> improvements IMHO. To me, cleanups and refactorings are important tools
>> to improve the software quality (and reduce the code size). All we can
>> do is try to minimize the number of BUGs - e.g., via more code review,
>> manual testing, automatic testing, and by actually understanding the
>> code. Cleanups/refactorings can even fix undiscovered BUGs (e.g., latest
>> example is [2])
> 
> Surely, most of people probably don’t care about those endless bugs because Linux is a monopoly in data center and open source and it is always like this since Linux was born as a hobby project.
> 

Well, working for a distribution I do care a lot :)

Again, your work is highly appreciated, but you are trying to use a
questionable approach (limit code changes) to solve a fundamental
problem (people not testing stuff, lack of review).

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb