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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ac1fd7f4-f53a-ddc4-192b-8c8af254f7ee@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 14:39:36 -0800
From:   Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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


On 1/11/21 12:28 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> 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.Ã‚Â 
> ... 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 ...

Sorry about that.

I really do want to help out, earlier you mentioned patchwork problems.

If you can point me at the wreckage, I'll take a look.

Tom


>
> - Moritz
>