netdev - Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core

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: <20150731220102.GA31209@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:01:02 -0600
From:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Somnath Kotur <Somnath.Kotur@...gotech.com>,
	Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>,
	"talal@...lanox.com" <talal@...lanox.com>,
	Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next V7 00/10] Move RoCE GID management to IB/Core

On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 12:24:23AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:

> addressed in incremental patch, as Doug suggested. Jason, it's wrong
> to send developers again and again to fix things which were 
> perfect in Vn-1 but also not being covered by reviewers on Vn-1, at
> some point the reviewer can't load new comments which gate the

I don't even know what you are talking about Or.

v6 had some small problems in the logic and v7 introduces a fairly
serious flaw while trying to fix them. IMHO, you are better to merge
v6 than v7, at least v6's problems are less likely to be serious.

IMHO, it took until around v5/v6 before this series was even worth
taking a detailed look at. I'm certainly not willing to waste my time
doing detailed reviews on other elements when basic things like
locking and refcounting are screwed up.

I think you are really off side with the idea that a review has to see
every problem in Vn or ignore it in Vn+1. That is obviously
unworkable.

> acceptance but rather be willing for things to be fixed incrementally.

That is the same argument you used for the timestamp _ex UAPI mess,
last cycle, where are the incremental fixes for that?

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html