From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/smc: mark as BROKEN due to remote memory exposure Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20170516.124129.292555623308256441.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20170516.122923.869994491617365845.davem@davemloft.net> <20170516163041.GA5132@lst.de> <1494952561.3259.104.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1494952561.3259.104.camel@redhat.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: dledford@redhat.com Cc: hch@lst.de, Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org From: Doug Ledford Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:36:01 -0400 > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 18:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:29:23PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> > >> > I can't push back on people with silly coding style and small >> > semantic >> > issues forever.  And I think I made a serious effort to keep the >> > patches getting posted over and over again to make sure they got >> > more >> > exposure. >> >> You can tell them to go to linux-rdma.  I'm sending people to the >> right >> mailing list all the time. > > Indeed.  Every single time a patch comes into linux-rdma that touches > things in net/ or include/net, unless it is exceedingly minor, I check > the To:/Cc: lines on the email and if netdev@ isn't included, or in the > case of complex/tricky items, you aren't directly Cc:ed, then I > specifically tell them to include netdev@ and/or you.  I've even had > things like a 12 patch series that buried three netdev@ appropriate > patches at different points in the series and told the submitter to > move all of the netdev@ related patches to the front and submit them to > netdev@ so they can be reviewed as a group before I would move on to > the others.  It's just what you do.  I've always considered that part > of my job. To be quite honest it wasn't exceedingly clear, even to me, that this had such implications or was directly a RDMA thing. From my perspective while reviewing I saw a patch series adding it's own protocol stack living inside of it's own directory under net/ And, if even one RDMA/infiniband person said to me "you really shouldn't apply this" then I would have dropped it on the spot. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:50810 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752172AbdEPQlq (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2017 12:41:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20170516.124129.292555623308256441.davem@davemloft.net> To: dledford@redhat.com Cc: hch@lst.de, Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/smc: mark as BROKEN due to remote memory exposure From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1494952561.3259.104.camel@redhat.com> References: <20170516.122923.869994491617365845.davem@davemloft.net> <20170516163041.GA5132@lst.de> <1494952561.3259.104.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Doug Ledford Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 12:36:01 -0400 > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 18:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:29:23PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> > >> > I can't push back on people with silly coding style and small >> > semantic >> > issues forever.��And I think I made a serious effort to keep the >> > patches getting posted over and over again to make sure they got >> > more >> > exposure. >> >> You can tell them to go to linux-rdma.��I'm sending people to the >> right >> mailing list all the time. > > Indeed. �Every single time a patch comes into linux-rdma that touches > things in net/ or include/net, unless it is exceedingly minor, I check > the To:/Cc: lines on the email and if netdev@ isn't included, or in the > case of complex/tricky items, you aren't directly Cc:ed, then I > specifically tell them to include netdev@ and/or you. �I've even had > things like a 12 patch series that buried three netdev@ appropriate > patches at different points in the series and told the submitter to > move all of the netdev@ related patches to the front and submit them to > netdev@ so they can be reviewed as a group before I would move on to > the others. �It's just what you do. �I've always considered that part > of my job. To be quite honest it wasn't exceedingly clear, even to me, that this had such implications or was directly a RDMA thing. From my perspective while reviewing I saw a patch series adding it's own protocol stack living inside of it's own directory under net/ And, if even one RDMA/infiniband person said to me "you really shouldn't apply this" then I would have dropped it on the spot.