From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B415C3A
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:21:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pf1-f170.google.com (mail-pf1-f170.google.com
	[209.85.210.170])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F04C63D
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:21:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf1-f170.google.com with SMTP id t16so12038426pfe.11
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
References: <1559836116.15946.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
	<20190606155846.GA31044@kroah.com>
	<1559838569.3144.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
	<CAPcyv4guyNu5CVhxaAzMM5cq3VaXkcOPgjRTw5wZ2o_G094EmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<yq17e9xi24p.fsf@oracle.com> <20190613104930.7dc85e13@coco.lan>
	<1560436507.3329.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
	<yq18su51q92.fsf@oracle.com>
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Message-ID: <3418df99-ff2b-9a9f-7702-1e272d1cb783@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:21:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <yq18su51q92.fsf@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
	ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch
 Acceptance Consistency
List-Id: <ksummit-discuss.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>

On 6/13/19 8:03 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
>> It depends: every patch you do to an old driver comes with a risk of
>> breakage.  What we've found is even apparently sane patches cause
>> breakage which isn't discovered until months later when someone with
>> the hardware actually tests.
> 
> My pet peeve is with the constant stream of seemingly innocuous
> helper-interface-of-the-week changes. Such as "Use kzfoobar() instead of
> kfoobar() + memset()". And then a year later somebody decides kzfoobar()
> had a subtle adverse side-effect and now we all need to switch to
> kpzfoobar().
> 
> I appreciate that some of these helpers may have merit in terms of
> facilitating static code checkers, etc. But other than that, I really
> fail to see the value of this constant churn.
> 
> The devil is always in the details. It's almost inevitably these obvious
> five-liners that cause regressions down the line.
> 
> So why do we keep doing this?

How about discussing at the kernel summit whether or not patches that 
have not been tested on actual hardware should be ignored?

Thanks,

Bart.