linux-kernel - Re: Folios for 5.15 request - Was: re: Folio discussion recap -

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: <YUuO4D8nzEDJa6uH@moria.home.lan>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:15:28 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Folios for 5.15 request - Was: re: Folio discussion recap -

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 08:54:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> That's the nature of a pull request.  It's binary -- either it's pulled or
> it's rejected.  Well, except that Linus has opted for silence, leaving
> me in limbo.  I have no idea what he's thinking.  I don't know if he
> agrees with Johannes.  I don't know what needs to change for Linus to
> like this series enough to pull it (either now or in the 5.16 merge
> window).  And that makes me frustrated.  This is over a year of work
> from me and others, and it's being held up over concerns which seem to
> me to be entirely insubstantial (the name "folio"?  really?  and even
> my change to use "pageset" was met with silence from Linus.)

People bikeshed the naming when they're uncomfortable with what's being proposed
and have nothing substantive to say, and people are uncomfortable with what's
being proposed when there's clear disagreement between major stakeholders who
aren't working with each other.

And the utterly ridiculous part of this whole fiasco is that you and Johannes
have a LOT of common ground regarding the larger picture of what we do with the
struct page mess, but you two keep digging in your heels purely because you're
convinced that you can't work with each other so you need to either route around
each other or be as forceful as possible to get what you want. You're convinced
you're not listenig to each other, but even that isn't true because when I pass
ideas back and forth between you and they come from "not Matthew" or "not
Johannes" you both listen and incorporate them just fine.

We can't have a process where major stakeholders are trying to actively sabotage
each other's efforts, which is pretty close to where we're at now. You two just
need to learn to work with each other.