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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 5F160C433E5 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:29:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325FD20771 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:29:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="NXnhLWyz" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729499AbgGWO3T (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:29:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49260 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728780AbgGWO3S (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:29:18 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1236::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71D16C0619DC; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:29:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=upOiIS7dMuAye0nblqH4s7ijqqWrvcTJhfr37DrOQV4=; b=NXnhLWyzLS186oz1sFOcrgLsjP wqswZUN8nPVkVOwndoUqsF7gfC2ZxKdZQCwGixtBlpofMFffF/EjHEPBljpMLAh8NEIb+GWShTLxE qSNjgEb8x5KIxJyWKY+I1Wy3wsvp+yPXIv3dACcd0VqcZlI/7eoC5IRec+tZVNCRZe184WGpSozhk CvN5XmIyHTaRw44j/WGYE+N6OLt25YAvJyVdEHG5nt1uNTZYubIMudeszyZkroKmGPNLmWm8fq7Cm GpFfjYgDqTZB6cKPZMF8/YFlhLIN8uceUVDtQTVDRnXEgTmQCUgX5H8Any/+y/RIVCID1b84LZb/Y Sghus1pw==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jycDX-0006yA-8C; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:29:03 +0000 Received: by worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 64E5F983422; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:29:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:29:02 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Alex Belits , "frederic@kernel.org" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , Prasun Kapoor , "mingo@kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "linux-api@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "catalin.marinas@arm.com" , "will@kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] "Task_isolation" mode Message-ID: <20200723142902.GT5523@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <04be044c1bcd76b7438b7563edc35383417f12c8.camel@marvell.com> <87imeextf3.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87imeextf3.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:17:04PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 8) Changelogs > > Most of the changelogs have something along the lines: > > 'task isolation does not want X, so do Y to make it not do X' > > without any single line of explanation why this approach was chosen > and why it is correct under all circumstances and cannot have nasty > side effects. > > It's not the job of the reviewers/maintainers to figure this out. > > Please come up with a coherent design first and then address the > identified issues one by one in a way which is palatable and reviewable. > > Throwing a big pile of completely undocumented 'works for me' mess over > the fence does not get you anywhere, not even to the point that people > are willing to review it in detail. This.. as presented it is an absolutely unreviewable pile of junk. It presents code witout any coherent problem description and analysis. And the patches are not split sanely either.