linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] FPGA DFL Changes for 5.12

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:28:41 -0800
From:   Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
To:     Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
        "linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, moritzf@...gle.com,
        Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>,
        Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@...wei.com>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        "Gerlach, Matthew" <matthew.gerlach@...el.com>,
        Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@...inx.com>,
        Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        Richard Gong <richard.gong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] FPGA DFL Changes for 5.12

Tom,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:46:03AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:

[..]
> I have been doing the first review in a couple of days after every patch landing.

I appreciate your help with doing reviews.

> I see some pretty good response from the developers to fix the issues raised. 

... yet patches have been rejected. So it doesn't seem purely a matter
of throughput?

> But I do not see Moritz picking up the review until weeks later.

I'll admit there are delays that happen, I have a dayjob as I pointed
out in earlier conversations. Furthermore, just because I do not
immediately send out an email does not mean I don't look at stuff.

If people show up with 100kLOC patchsets that don't pass checkpatch,
it'll take a while for me to even read up and understand what they're
doing / trying to do.

> This consistent delay in timely reviews is a bottleneck.

As Greg pointed out even ones that were reviewed got rejected, so
clearly the issue is with the quality and not the speed at which we send
them on.

> It would be good if the big first reviews could be done in parallel.

Again depending how the patchsets are structured it will take me a while
to process. Having them re-use existing infrastructure, following
coding and submission guidelines will speed up the process.

On a personal level, being told I'm too slow and not doing my job as
maintainer doesn't exactly increase my motivation to get to it ...

- Moritz