Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling

[Kent Overstreet]

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:33:48AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 05:57 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 11:50:51AM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> > > If anyone ever wants to use this code tagging framework for
> > > something
> > > else, they will also have to convert relevant functions to macros,
> > > slowly changing the kernel to a minefield where local identifiers,
> > > struct, union and enum tags, field names and labels must avoid name
> > > conflict with a tagged function. For now, I have to remember that
> > > alloc_pages is forbidden, but the list may grow.
> > 
> > Also, since you're not actually a kernel contributor yet...
> 
> You have an amazing talent for being wrong.  But even if you were
> actually right about this, it would be an ad hominem personal attack on
> a new contributor which crosses the line into unacceptable behaviour on
> the list and runs counter to our code of conduct.

...Err, what? That was intended _in no way_ as a personal attack.

If I was mistaken I do apologize, but lately I've run across quite a lot
of people offering review feedback to patches I post that turn out to
have 0 or 10 patches in the kernel, and - to be blunt - a pattern of
offering feedback in strong language with a presumption of experience
that takes a lot to respond to adequately on a technical basis.

I don't think a suggestion to spend a bit more time reading code instead
of speculating is out of order! We could all, put more effort into how
we offer review feedback.