From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AA1C4338F for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E58A6127B for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229802AbhHVRVH (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:21:07 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56498 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229460AbhHVRVE (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:21:04 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C85F6124B; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:20:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1629652823; bh=953HepCQhlZjrVqmaZ9RVa/BsY9OJ/Z54dvDmcsyMdQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KNKbOArThMZ52ow17srczakH4jFCRqJB11K6RF1SNaH4wSlQne0oknRKS3jNOYVmb ft4Gw2dThpuc09NO5Iw50MUJT+9AVXisYy3a/FQWzi5xT/vaFFOgm7z5h4UN0zHi0b CuCcweB6A7QYk8ge6+EJDUy2eYyDs2yj1AX8EM4dgDx5U8azjrOv/MWjTqM2ZHM/jg Saodg9ucd4W/HUwrUYOGb+mMoF7/hf7cf2G9K8Cxr/xo7XxgTLmZYE8gAgdeAGWM0I 1B0u25WNzGCn4Xel4Qv81IJeobfPW3xwEfzb8Ln5QIBzAtMZctmklVff9Pu+Z56d9o LUS+uZpxj/b6g== Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 10:20:23 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , xfs , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: [PATCH] iomap: standardize tracepoint formatting and storage Message-ID: <20210822172023.GZ12640@magnolia> References: <20210822023223.GY12640@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 04:30:24AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 07:32:23PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > @@ -58,8 +58,7 @@ DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(iomap_range_class, > > __entry->offset = off; > > __entry->length = len; > > ), > > - TP_printk("dev %d:%d ino 0x%llx size 0x%llx offset %lx " > > - "length %x", > > + TP_printk("dev %d:%d ino 0x%llx size 0x%llx offset 0x%llx length 0x%llx", > > %#llx is one character shorter than 0x%llx ;-) ...and since you declined to add even a conditional review tag, this patch will now sit in limbo for 2-3 days while I agonize over whether 1) I should send a v2 patch with this minor stylistic thing changed and hope that nobody objects to the v2, or worse, tells me I should go back to v1; 2) hope that someone else won't be as picky and send a review; 3) prepare myself for the inevitable DM that's coming about how I'm too soft on reviewers; 4) wait the other inevitable DM about how I really could exercise maintainer's prerogative to ignore the trivial style complaints; and 5) brace for the other inevitable DM about how I really shouldn't abandon the review process to ram code into the kernel just because of stylistic complaints. Yeah, I'm not going to abandon the established public process. Requiring RVB even for maintainer patches is a useful check against maintainers committing garbage to the repo. But. All five of these things keep happening every kernel cycle, and it's dragging down my mental health. To say nothing of the worldwide disease, political unrest, and hostile weather. **This** is the reason why I want to quit and never come back. I enjoy every part of the process from requirements to implementation. I enjoy discussing the design of algorithms, and I find it satisfying even to rip things out to try other suggestions. I don't enjoy revving patchsets repeatedly to try to find the magic combination of printf formatting strings, comment massage, and helper function placement golf that will get every patch through review. This is why I'm constantly stressed out about not being able to keep up with all the demands being placed on me. Experts' time should be spent on solving tough problems, debugging the really nasty bugs, and coaching less familiar people as they get up to speed. Not this. So I'm putting everyone on notice: If you care about stylistic problems (and while I'm on my soapbox: cleaning up other parts of the codebase that a patch touches only briefly) so strongly, then change my patch and send it back to me. Or change the snippets you want in the reply, and state that you ack/review the patch on condition that the snippets are applied. Once I'm done with 5.15 merge patches, I would like to have a broader discussion about xfs/iomap review policies, and have requested a session at LPC for this purpose. (And in case it wasn't clear: If you think a piece of code is so poorly fitted to a problem that you want me to go back to the drawing board, I am still completely happy to do that.) --D