Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] tools/nolibc: fix up size inflate regression

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, david.laight@aculab.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	tanyuan@tinylab.org, thomas@t-8ch.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] tools/nolibc: fix up size inflate regression
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:25:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230814072552.GD14322@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230813133944.19604-1-falcon@tinylab.org>

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 09:39:44PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > Let's just roll brk(), mmap() and sbrk() to their original, working,
> > definition:
> > 
> >  static __attribute__((unused))
> >  void *mmap(void *addr, size_t length, int prot, int flags, int fd, off_t offset)
> >  {
> >         void *ret = sys_mmap(addr, length, prot, flags, fd, offset);
> >  
> >         if ((unsigned long)ret >= -MAX_ERRNO) {
> >                 SET_ERRNO(-(long)ret);
> >                 ret = MAP_FAILED;
> >         }
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> >
> 
> Agree, only left a suggestion here [2] about whether we can apply the 2nd patch
> instead of rolling them back, let's discuss it in [2] thread.
(...)
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230813132620.19411-1-falcon@tinylab.org/

I'm sorry but I can't find this "suggestion" in this yet-another-super-
long-description-of-another-idea-of-redesign. In addition it's extremely
painful to constantly have to go through web links to follow a single
conversation. Mail works in threads for a reason. When the same discussion
is handled in many parallel threads it becomes impossible to keep it
focused on a specific topic. This is also why you should stop systematically
responding to a message with yet another redesign suggestion, this is super
hard to follow and it literally takes me several hours a week! And at the
end we've not addressed the initial problem but discussed plenty of other
things.

Thanks,
Willy