linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 71/86] treewide: lib: remove cond

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]

Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 23:43:22 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, jon.grimm@....com,
        bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        krypton@...ich-teichert.org, David.Laight@...lab.com,
        richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 71/86] treewide: lib: remove cond_resched()

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:19:55 +0800
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 10:08:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > A "Nack" with no commentary is completely useless and borderline offensive.  
> 
> Well you just sent me an email out of the blue, with zero context
> about what you were doing, and you're complaining to me about giving
> your a curt response?

First, I didn't send the email, and your "Nack" wasn't directed at me.

Second, with lore and lei, it's trivial today to find the cover letter from
the message id. But I get it. It's annoying when you have to do that.

> 
> > What is your rationale for the Nack?  
> 
> Next time perhaps consider sending the cover letter and the important
> patches to everyone rather than the mailing list.

Then that is how you should have responded. I see other maintainers respond
as such. A "Nack" is still meaningless. You could have responded with:

 "What is this? And why are you doing it?"

Which is a much better and a more meaningful response than a "Nack".

> 
> > The cond_resched() is going away if the patches earlier in the series gets
> > implemented. So either it is removed from your code, or it will become a
> > nop, and just wasting bits in the source tree. Your choice.  
> 
> This is exactly what I should have received.

Which is why I replied, as the original email author is still new at this,
but is learning.

-- Steve