linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.12-rc2

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjns3i5bm++338SrfJhrDUt6wyzvUPMLrEvMZan5ezmxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 17:14:31 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs fixes for 6.12-rc2

On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 16:41, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> If what you want is patches appearing on the list, I'm not unwilling to
> make that change.

I want you to WORK WITH OTHERS. Including me - which means working
with the rules and processes we have in place.

Making the argument that we didn't have those rules twenty years ago
is just stupid.  We have them NOW, because we learnt better. You don't
get to say "look, you didn't have rules 20 years ago, so why should I
have them now?"

Patches appearing on the list is not some kind of sufficient thing.
It's the absolute minimal requirement. The fact that absolutely *NONE*
of the patches in your pull request showed up when I searched just
means that you clearly didn't even attempt to have others involved
(ok, I probably only searched for half of them and then I gave up in
disgust).

We literally had a bcachefs build failure last week. It showed up
pretty much immediately after I pulled your tree. And because you sent
in the bcachefs "fixes" with the bug the day before I cut rc1, we
ended up with a broken rc1.

And hey, mistakes happen. But when the *SAME* absolute disregard for
testing happens the very next weekend, do you really expect me to be
happy about it?

It's this complete disregard for anybody else that I find problematic.
You don't even try to get other developers involved, or follow
upstream rules.

And then you don't seem to even understand why I then complain.

In fact, you in the next email say:

> If you're so convinced you know best, I invite you to start writing your
> own filesystem. Go for it.

Not at all. I'm not interested in creating another bcachefs.

I'm contemplating just removing bcachefs entirely from the mainline
tree. Because you show again and again that you have no interest in
trying to make mainline work.

You can do it out of mainline. You did it for a decade, and that
didn't cause problems. I thought it would be better if it finally got
mainlined, but by all your actions you seem to really want to just
play in your own sandbox and not involve anybody else.

So if this is just your project and nobody else is expected to
participate, and you don't care about the fact that you break the
mainline build, why the hell did you want to be in the mainline tree
in the first place?

                   Linus