linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

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: <4319210.ejJDZkT8p0@lichtvoll.de>
Date:   Fri, 08 Sep 2023 08:29:15 +0200
From:   Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

Hi Kent, hi Linus, hi everyone,

Kent Overstreet - 08.09.23, 01:40:01 CEST:
> The biggest thing has just been the non stop hostility and accusations -
> everything from "fracturing the community" too "ignoring all the rules"
> and my favorite, "is this the hill Kent wants to die on?" - when I'm
> just trying to get work done.

I observed this for a while now, without commenting and found the 
following pattern on both "sides" of the story:

Accusing the other one of wrong-doing.

As long as those involved in the merging process continue that pattern 
that story of not merging bcachefs most likely will continue. And even if 
it gets merged, there would be ongoing conflict about it. Cause I have no 
control over how someone else acts. Quite the contrary: The more I expect 
and require someone else to change the more resistance I am most likely to 
meet. I only can change how I act.

This pattern stops exactly when everyone involved looks at their own part 
in this repeated and frustrating "bcachefs is not merged to the mainline 
Linux kernel" dance. And from what I observed the failure to merge it is 
not caused by a single developer. Neither from you, Kent, neither from 
anyone else. It is the combination of the single actions of several 
developers and the social interaction between them that caused the failure 
to merge it so far. Accusing the other one is giving all the power to 
change the situation to someone else.

I am sure merging it will work when everyone involved first looks at 
themselves and asks themselves the questions "Have I contributed to make 
merging bcachefs difficult and if so how and most importantly how can I act 
more constructive about it?". And I mean that for the developers who have 
been skeptical about the merge as well as the supportive developers 
including Kent. There have been actions on both "sides" that contributed 
to delay a merge. I am not going to make a list but leave it to everyone 
involved to consider themselves what those were.

For the recent requests of having it GPG signed as well as having it go 
through next: I think those requests are reasonable. As far as I read 
bcache back then went through next as well. Would it have been nice to 
have been told that earlier? Yes. But both of those requests are certainly 
not a show-stopper to have bcachefs merged at a later time.

Of course I know I have been asking others to go within and consider their 
own behavior in this mail while being perfectly aware that I cannot change 
how anyone else acts. However, maybe it is an inspiration to some to 
decide for themselves to consider a change.

In the best hopes to see bcachefs being merged to the "official" Linux 
kernel soon,
-- 
Martin