From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] raid56: variant bug fixes
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:47:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170314134759.GB14605@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b6ba2bec-ea6c-ca7f-5806-ba6c6dfc71f7@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:48:37AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> So raid56 bug fixes are the same case as qgroup fixes now?
Not now, it's been like that forever. Or should have been, we're not
perfect, but should strive not to skip reviews just because we want to
let new code in.
> No reviewer so no merge?
>
> I understand we need enough reviewer, however there is never enough
> reviewer for *minor* functions, like qgroup or raid56.
I would not call them minor. Qgroups are hooked to the core of the
operations, raid56 is a compartment, but can become complex regarding
the error modes and safety constraints.
> Such situation will just make such functions starve, bugs makes fewer
> tester and users, fewer users leads to even fewer developers, causing a
> minus spiral.
Unreviewed code is more buggy, leads to the same. You've been around for
a long time, I'm sure you'll remember times when an underreviewed
patchset caused headaches for several major releases. All developers
have record of a major problem in their code, that's why we must do the
reviews.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-14 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-03 8:20 [PATCH 0/5] raid56: variant bug fixes Qu Wenruo
2017-02-03 8:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs: scrub: Introduce full stripe lock for RAID56 Qu Wenruo
2017-02-03 8:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] btrfs: scrub: Fix RAID56 recovery race condition Qu Wenruo
2017-02-03 8:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] btrfs: raid56: Use correct stolen pages to calculate P/Q Qu Wenruo
2017-03-16 5:36 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-16 8:30 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-03-17 6:31 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-03-17 22:19 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-20 4:33 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-02-03 8:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] btrfs: raid56: Don't keep rbio for later steal Qu Wenruo
2017-03-17 4:44 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-17 5:28 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-03-18 2:03 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-20 6:21 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-03-20 20:23 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-21 0:44 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-03-21 2:08 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-21 2:23 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-03-21 5:45 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-21 7:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-02-03 8:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: replace: Use ref counts to avoid destroying target device when canceled Qu Wenruo
2017-03-18 2:12 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-20 6:30 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-03-20 19:31 ` Liu Bo
2017-03-07 3:48 ` [PATCH 0/5] raid56: variant bug fixes Qu Wenruo
2017-03-14 13:47 ` David Sterba [this message]
2017-03-14 21:30 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170314134759.GB14605@twin.jikos.cz \
--to=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.