linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC

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: <7747240.EvYhyI6sBW@lichtvoll.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:32:44 +0100
From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
 Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, jack@...e.cz,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
 James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "conduct@...nel.org" <conduct@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM

Hi Ted, hi everyone.

Theodore Ts'o - 21.11.24, 00:47:59 MEZ:
> If you look at the git history of the kernel sources, you will see
> that a large number of your fellow maintainers assented to this
> approach --- for example by providing their Acked-by in commit
> 1279dbeed36f ("Code of Conduct Interpretation: Add document explaining
> how the Code of Conduct is to be interpreted").

A large number of people agreeing on a process like this does not 
automatically make it an effective idea for resolving conflict. As I 
outlined in my other mail, this kind of forced public apology approach in 
my point of view is just serving to escalate matters. And actually it 
seems that exactly that just happened right now. See my other mail for 
suggestions on what I think might work better.

A large number of people agreeing on anything does not automatically make 
it right.

I'd suggest to avoid any kind of power-play like "we are more than you" in 
here. What would respectful communication would look like? What does 
happen if *everyone* involved considers how it might feel in the shoes of 
the other one?

I have and claim no standing in kernel community. So take this for 
whatever it is worth for you. I won't be offended in case you disregard it. 
Also I do not need any reply.

And again, just for clarity: I certainly do not condone of the tone Kent 
has used.

Best,
-- 
Martin