| Message ID | AM0PR07MB4417C1C3A4E55EFE47027CA2FD0B0@AM0PR07MB4417.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ext4: Variable to signed to check return code | expand |
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Philippe Mazenauer wrote: > Variables 'n' and 'err' are both used for less-than-zero error checking, > however both are declared as unsigned. Ensure ext4_map_blocks() and > add_system_zone() are able to have their return values propagated > correctly by redefining them both as signed integers. > > ../fs/ext4/block_validity.c:158:9: warning: comparison of unsigned > expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] > if (n < 0) { > ^ > > ../fs/ext4/block_validity.c:173:12: warning: comparison of unsigned > expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] > if (err < 0) > ^ > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mazenauer <philippe.mazenauer@outlook.de> > --- > fs/ext4/block_validity.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:25:06AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 17 May 2019, Philippe Mazenauer wrote: > > > Variables 'n' and 'err' are both used for less-than-zero error checking, > > however both are declared as unsigned. Ensure ext4_map_blocks() and > > add_system_zone() are able to have their return values propagated > > correctly by redefining them both as signed integers. This is already fixed in the ext4.git tree; it will be pushed to Linus shortly. (Thanks to Colin Ian King from Canonical for sending the patch.) > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> Lee, techncially this should have been Reviewed-by. Acked-by is used by the maintainer when a patch is going in via some other tree other than the Maintainer's (it means the Maintainer has acked the patch). If you are reviewing a patch, the tag you should be adding is Reviewed-by. Cheers, - Ted
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:25:06AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 17 May 2019, Philippe Mazenauer wrote: > > > > > Variables 'n' and 'err' are both used for less-than-zero error checking, > > > however both are declared as unsigned. Ensure ext4_map_blocks() and > > > add_system_zone() are able to have their return values propagated > > > correctly by redefining them both as signed integers. > > This is already fixed in the ext4.git tree; it will be pushed to Linus > shortly. (Thanks to Colin Ian King from Canonical for sending the > patch.) > > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > Lee, techncially this should have been Reviewed-by. Acked-by is used > by the maintainer when a patch is going in via some other tree other > than the Maintainer's (it means the Maintainer has acked the patch). > If you are reviewing a patch, the tag you should be adding is > Reviewed-by. Actually, that's not technically correct. "- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel." And I, as a developer (and not a Maintainer in this case) do indicate that this patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel. Reviewed-by has stronger connotations and implies I have in-depth knowledge of the subsystem/driver AND agree to the Reviewer's Statement. I use Acked-by in this case as a weaker agreement after a shallow review of the patch based on its merits alone.
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 07:38:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > "- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a > maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for > inclusion into the kernel." > > And I, as a developer (and not a Maintainer in this case) do indicate > that this patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel. > > Reviewed-by has stronger connotations and implies I have in-depth > knowledge of the subsystem/driver AND agree to the Reviewer's > Statement. I use Acked-by in this case as a weaker agreement after a > shallow review of the patch based on its merits alone. Note the "often a maintainer of the relevant code" bit. And "appropriate for inclusion into the kernel" means to me that you've done the same level of review as Reviewed-by. So I have very different understanding of how Acked-by and Reviewed-by than you do. That being said, no offence to you, but any kind of Acked-by or Reviewed-by from you is not going to have as much weight as say, a Reviewed-by: from someone like Jan Kara. That's just because I don't have a good sense to your technical ability, and so I'd be doing a full review myself and not rely on your review at all.... Cheers, - Ted P.S. And if I find a problem in the patch, and someone had attached their Acked-by or Reviewed-by to it, it would have the same negative hit to their reputation either way. Not a big deal if it happens only once, or it's an esepcially tricky issue, but it if happens more than once or is really blatent, I as the maintainer definitely do remember.
On Sat, 18 May 2019, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 07:38:34AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > "- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a > > maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for > > inclusion into the kernel." > > > > And I, as a developer (and not a Maintainer in this case) do indicate > > that this patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel. > > > > Reviewed-by has stronger connotations and implies I have in-depth > > knowledge of the subsystem/driver AND agree to the Reviewer's > > Statement. I use Acked-by in this case as a weaker agreement after a > > shallow review of the patch based on its merits alone. > > Note the "often a maintainer of the relevant code" bit. And Exactly, with the *often* (but not always, right!) being the operative word in that sentence. As much as I understand the meaning when used by a Maintainer when commenting on their own subsystem (I use it in this way a lot too), it doesn't always mean "it's okay for you to take this patch which usually comes under my jurisdiction". I think you're missing and if () statement in your understanding: if (maintainer_of_patches'_subsystem) apply_patch_with_supplied_ack(); else /* Where 'n' is the regard you hold for the ack supplier. */ add_n_units_to_patch_credibility(n); > "appropriate for inclusion into the kernel" means to me that you've > done the same level of review as Reviewed-by. So I have very Actually it doesn't, or else the documentation text for Acked-by would be just as intense as it is for Reviewed-by. Reviewed-by IMHO has a much stronger standing than an Acked-by (caveat: when not provided by a maintainer of the appropriate subsystem). > different understanding of how Acked-by and Reviewed-by than you do. Yes, this is seemingly the case. It's apparent that the documentation is not a clear as perhaps it should be, else we wouldn't be having this conversation. Maybe this is something which should be discussed a Kernel Summit. The result being a patch or two which firms up the wording/explanation somewhat. > That being said, no offence to you, but any kind of Acked-by or > Reviewed-by from you is not going to have as much weight as say, a > Reviewed-by: from someone like Jan Kara. Seeing as Jan is a filesystem maintainer, this kind of goes without saying. In fact, the only reason a person might have to take the time to write something like this is to attempt to belittle and cause offence. I could be wrong, but probably not. :) > That's just because I don't have a good sense to your technical > ability I guess you could always use Git to gain a reasonable sense of my technical ability. The 4,000 committed contributions and many more thousands of reviews on the mailing list(s), should give you a brief glimpse. > and so I'd be doing a full review myself I'd think a great deal less of you if you didn't. > and not rely on your review at all.... "at all" - wow! What kind of message do you think this gives to first time contributors (like Philippe here), or would-be reviewers? That there isn't any point in attempting to review patches, since Maintainers are unlikely to take it into consideration "at all"? I know that when I come to review a patch, if *any* contributor has taken the time to review a patch, it always plays an important role. > P.S. And if I find a problem in the patch, and someone had attached > their Acked-by or Reviewed-by to it, it would have the same negative > hit to their reputation either way. Not a big deal if it happens only > once, or it's an esepcially tricky issue, but it if happens more than > once or is really blatent, I as the maintainer definitely do remember. Again, not really sure of your intentions when you write this out, or what it has to do with this patch submission or the review there after, but IMHO this is sending the wrong message to new and would-be contributors. As a community we're supposed to be providing a supportive, encouraging atmosphere. This paragraph is likely to do nothing more than scare off people who would otherwise be willing to have a go [at submitting or reviewing a patch].
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:24:02AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > "appropriate for inclusion into the kernel" means to me that you've > > done the same level of review as Reviewed-by. So I have very > > Actually it doesn't, or else the documentation text for Acked-by would > be just as intense as it is for Reviewed-by. Reviewed-by IMHO has a > much stronger standing than an Acked-by (caveat: when not provided by > a maintainer of the appropriate subsystem). Well quoting from submitting-patches: "It [Acked-by: ] is a record that the acker has AT LEAST REVIEWED THE PATCH" (emphasis mine). The primary use of it is to "signify and record their approval of it". And... Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing list archives. My question is what is the *point* of including a non-maintainer's Acked-by: to the git record? And if it's not the maintainer (or a core developer for a subsystem), then it becomes unclear what portion of the patch the non-Maintainer has reviewed. So at that point, how can a Maintainer rely on a non-Maintainer Acked-by at all in the first place? > > and so I'd be doing a full review myself > > I'd think a great deal less of you if you didn't. > > > and not rely on your review at all.... > > "at all" - wow! What kind of message do you think this gives to first > time contributors (like Philippe here), or would-be reviewers? That > there isn't any point in attempting to review patches, since > Maintainers are unlikely to take it into consideration "at all"? I > know that when I come to review a patch, if *any* contributor has > taken the time to review a patch, it always plays an important role. So if I'm going to have to do a full review (which you approve), that by definition means I'm not relying on the review at all, right? The way I handle things is that while I'm not going to rely on a Reviewed-by from an unknown reviewer, I do remember who provides reviews, and this will bump up their reputation so that perhaps in the future, I will rely on their reviews. Reviews that including some kind of substantive comments (if correct) will enhance the reviewer's reputation much more than a blind "Reviewd-by: ". BTW, empty reviews for a patch authored by alice@company-foo.com, coming from bob@company-foo.com (e.g., where the only content of the review is Reviewed-by: bob@company-foo.com) are things that I give much less weight, especially when bob@company-foo.com is not a known developer to me. (Yes, I know that sometimes patches get developed behind closed doors, and then squirt out fully formed with a four or five Reviewed-by: lines. But if I haven't seen the process, it doesn't give much value to the maintainer trying to judge the suitability of the patch. Red Hat's approach to do all patch discussions in the open is highly to be commended here.) > Again, not really sure of your intentions when you write this out, or > what it has to do with this patch submission or the review there > after, but IMHO this is sending the wrong message to new and would-be > contributors. As a community we're supposed to be providing a > supportive, encouraging atmosphere. This paragraph is likely to do > nothing more than scare off people who would otherwise be willing > to have a go [at submitting or reviewing a patch]. One of the things that I worry about are people who game git statistics by submitting a lot of empty Reviewed-by or Acked-by lines. It's right up there with people who send huge numbers of whitespace fixes. So my personal approach is to not include Reviewed-by or Acked-by if it didn't add any value to the project. It may indeed still value to the reviewer's reputation, and if the reviewer has helped to improve the patch, I'll make sure they get credit. I do agree that we should provide a supportive atmosphere. But we also need provide encouragement that contributors provide more substantive patches and more substantive reviewes. Cheers, - Ted
On Mon, 20 May 2019, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:24:02AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > "appropriate for inclusion into the kernel" means to me that you've > > > done the same level of review as Reviewed-by. So I have very > > > > Actually it doesn't, or else the documentation text for Acked-by would > > be just as intense as it is for Reviewed-by. Reviewed-by IMHO has a > > much stronger standing than an Acked-by (caveat: when not provided by > > a maintainer of the appropriate subsystem). > > Well quoting from submitting-patches: "It [Acked-by: ] is a record > that the acker has AT LEAST REVIEWED THE PATCH" (emphasis mine). Absolutely. Anyone who hasn't reviewed a patch to the best of their ability before providing their {Acked,Reviewed}-by would be a very silly person indeed. But that's not what you said and it not what I'm disagreeing with, is it? See above, you said "[an Acked-by] means to me that you've done the same level of review as Reviewed-by", which I do not agree with. A Reviewed-by to me means that a person knows the area, including possible side-effects a patch may cause. In this EXTx case, I do not consider myself a domain expert and thus am not in a position to provide that level of review. Instead, the patch was reviewed on its own merits, and since it looked good (which it still does), an Acked-by was provided. > The primary use of it is to "signify and record their approval of it". > And... > > Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the > entire patch. For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems > and has an Acked-by: from one subsystem maintainer then this > usually indicates acknowledgement of just the part which affects > that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. When in > doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the > mailing list archives. Exactly, there's that *if* I was talking about. "IF, a patch affects multiple subsystems". This patch does not. The Acked by is also not coming from a maintainer from this subsystem, thus this statement does not come into play. > My question is what is the *point* of including a non-maintainer's > Acked-by: to the git record? You'll have to take that up with the documentation, which clearly states: "Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for inclusion into the kernel. ... which is *exactly* as I meant it. I, as 'another developer', do consider this patch appropriate for the inclusion into the kernel. How is that less than totally clear? If the documentation is wrong, something needs to be done about that. Until then, I shall continue using Acked-bys to mean "I'm not an expert in this area, but based on the patch alone, the change looks good to me". > And if it's not the maintainer (or a > core developer for a subsystem), then it becomes unclear what portion > of the patch the non-Maintainer has reviewed. A reviewer will normally indicate which portion of the code has been reviewed, which can then be reflected in the change-log. If a maintainer Ack is applied, it can be assumed that only the part under their jurisdiction is relevant. If not a maintainer or core-dev, and no extra indication is provided, then I think we can assume they reviewed the whole patch. Extra indication can look like this in the *rare cases* a non-maintainer/core-dev provides a part-review: Acked-by: Joe Bloggs <j.b@someemail.com> [ext2] See 8a7f97b902f4 ("treewide: add checks for the return value of memblock_alloc*()") as the first example I came across. > So at that point, how > can a Maintainer rely on a non-Maintainer Acked-by at all in the first > place? At what point? > > > and so I'd be doing a full review myself > > > > I'd think a great deal less of you if you didn't. > > > > > and not rely on your review at all.... > > > > "at all" - wow! What kind of message do you think this gives to first > > time contributors (like Philippe here), or would-be reviewers? That > > there isn't any point in attempting to review patches, since > > Maintainers are unlikely to take it into consideration "at all"? I > > know that when I come to review a patch, if *any* contributor has > > taken the time to review a patch, it always plays an important role. > > So if I'm going to have to do a full review (which you approve), that > by definition means I'm not relying on the review at all, right? Your review should not replace and over-ride another review (unless you disagree with it, obviously), it should compliment it. Both *-bys should be added to the patch when/if it is applied. > The way I handle things is that while I'm not going to rely on a > Reviewed-by from an unknown reviewer, I do remember who provides > reviews, and this will bump up their reputation so that perhaps in the > future, I will rely on their reviews. Reviews that including some > kind of substantive comments (if correct) will enhance the reviewer's > reputation much more than a blind "Reviewd-by: ". Perfect. This is a positive statement. The way you worded this before was very negative and almost sounded like a threat. > BTW, empty reviews for a patch authored by alice@company-foo.com, > coming from bob@company-foo.com (e.g., where the only content of the > review is Reviewed-by: bob@company-foo.com) are things that I give > much less weight, especially when bob@company-foo.com is not a known > developer to me. Absolutely. I even alluded to this in my previous email. Ah bugger! After trying and find that part in order to quote it, it became apparent that I took that sentence out. But yes, I totally agree with you, reviews mean more if they are from an independent source. > (Yes, I know that sometimes patches get developed behind closed doors, > and then squirt out fully formed with a four or five Reviewed-by: > lines. But if I haven't seen the process, it doesn't give much value > to the maintainer trying to judge the suitability of the patch. Red > Hat's approach to do all patch discussions in the open is highly to be > commended here.) +1 NB: I still keep the *-bys applied when merging a patch, even if they do not hold much gravitas during my review process. > > Again, not really sure of your intentions when you write this out, or > > what it has to do with this patch submission or the review there > > after, but IMHO this is sending the wrong message to new and would-be > > contributors. As a community we're supposed to be providing a > > supportive, encouraging atmosphere. This paragraph is likely to do > > nothing more than scare off people who would otherwise be willing > > to have a go [at submitting or reviewing a patch]. > > One of the things that I worry about are people who game git > statistics by submitting a lot of empty Reviewed-by or Acked-by lines. I can't think of a time I have been on either end of this situation. If I saw anyone doing this I would call them out on it. Just to clarify, in case you think that's what is happening here (I'm sure you've looked though the Git log and seen for yourself, but still); I reviewed this patch solely because I am helping Philippe through the process of becoming a Kernel contributor, since he showed a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for it when I met him a few weeks ago whilst rock climbing. > It's right up there with people who send huge numbers of whitespace > fixes. Right, this drives me mad also. > So my personal approach is to not include Reviewed-by or > Acked-by if it didn't add any value to the project. That's wrong of you. I do not support this behaviour at all. If someone has gone to the trouble to review a patch and provide a suitable *-by, you, as the maintainer have a duty to credit this work by applying it to the patch (if accepted). Of course the statement above comes with some caveats. For example if you think someone is gaming the Git statistics, then you have a right to call them out and not apply the tag. However, you really should be giving people (especially people you don't know) the benefit of the doubt. > It may indeed > still value to the reviewer's reputation, and if the reviewer has > helped to improve the patch, I'll make sure they get credit. > > I do agree that we should provide a supportive atmosphere. But we > also need provide encouragement that contributors provide more > substantive patches and more substantive reviewes. That policy is crazy. You are saying that people should only be providing negative reviews? So what happens if someone conducts a review and they cannot find anything wrong with the submission? You are suggesting that you are not going to apply their tag anyway, so what would be the point in them providing one? You are essentially saying that unless they have previously given a patch a NACK, then don't bother to provide an ACK. Bonkers!
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:25:53AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > A Reviewed-by to me means that a person knows the area, including > possible side-effects a patch may cause. In this EXTx case, I do not > consider myself a domain expert and thus am not in a position to > provide that level of review. Instead, the patch was reviewed on its > own merits, and since it looked good (which it still does), an > Acked-by was provided. So that kind of "review", where "I'm not an expert, but it looks good to me", has very, very little value as far as I'm concerned. A computer program can do a "it builds, ship it" test, and checkpatch can find the whitespace nits. So what value does a "I can't consider side-effects" review have? Again, as a maintainer, I can put very little (read: zero) reliance on it. > Exactly, there's that *if* I was talking about. "IF, a patch affects > multiple subsystems". This patch does not. The Acked by is also not > coming from a maintainer from this subsystem, thus this statement does > not come into play. And my assertion is that if a patch does not affect multiple subsystems, an Acked-by has close to zero value. So why do it? In my opinion, we should tighten up the documentation to only use it for the Maintainer reviewing a patch that's not flowing through the Maintainer's tree. > > > "at all" - wow! What kind of message do you think this gives to first > > > time contributors (like Philippe here), or would-be reviewers? That > > > there isn't any point in attempting to review patches, since > > > Maintainers are unlikely to take it into consideration "at all"? I > > > know that when I come to review a patch, if *any* contributor has > > > taken the time to review a patch, it always plays an important role. > > > > So if I'm going to have to do a full review (which you approve), that > > by definition means I'm not relying on the review at all, right? > > Your review should not replace and over-ride another review (unless > you disagree with it, obviously), it should compliment it. Both *-bys > should be added to the patch when/if it is applied. We're using "reviewed" in two different ways. I'm talking about an empty "reviewed-by" or "acked-by", for which if it's an developer unknown to me, I have no way of telling how much time they spent on the review. Was it 5 seconds? Or 5 minutes? Or something in between? You're saying that if someone sends a "Reviewed-by" or "Acked-by", I *must* never drop it, even if I have no idea how much value it has (and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it has no value). Sorry, I'm not going to play things that way. Feel free to call me bad if you want, it's not going to change how I do things. Worse, what value does it add if we record it for all posterity? What should someone who is reviewing the git log after the fact, perhaps a year later, take from the fact that there is an unknowned Reviewed-By or Acked-By attached to the commit? Do you think someone reviewing a commit year later will spend time crawling over the git history to determine how many reviews someone has done? (And if all maintainer's add empty Reviewed-by to their commit, looking at Git histories might not tell you much anyway. It cheapens the Reviewed-by and Acked-by headers. I consider part of the maintianer's job to curate not just patches, but Reviewed-By and Acked-by headers.) And BTW, if the maintainer is using a non-rewinding git tree, and the git has already been published on git.kernel.org, it's physically not *possible* for them to add a late Reviewed-by, or Acked-by. And I think that's perfectly justifiable, since if the decision has already been made to accept the commit, the Reviewed-By or Acked-By has no value to the project. > > So my personal approach is to not include Reviewed-by or > > Acked-by if it didn't add any value to the project. > > That's wrong of you. I do not support this behaviour at all. If > someone has gone to the trouble to review a patch and provide a > suitable *-by, you, as the maintainer have a duty to credit this work > by applying it to the patch (if accepted). But I don't *know* that someone has gone to the trouble to review a patch. If they made any kind of comment (positive or negative, or evaluating tradeoffs), then I have some kind of signal about how much time they spent reviewing the patch, and how much comprehension they have about the patch. This is why my metric is "value to the subsystem / value to the project as a whole". You yourself have asked me to count the number of Reviewed-by you have as a sign of your technical ability. Would you then want to make sure that that signal isn't cheapened? > That policy is crazy. You are saying that people should only be > providing negative reviews? So what happens if someone conducts a > review and they cannot find anything wrong with the submission? You > are suggesting that you are not going to apply their tag anyway, so > what would be the point in them providing one? You are essentially > saying that unless they have previously given a patch a NACK, then > don't bother to provide an ACK. Bonkers! It's a question of developer history. Not just of a particular patch, but their reviewer history as a whole. If Jan Kara or Andreas Dilger or Lukas Czerner sends me a empty Reviewed-By, it has great weight, because they've found issues with other patches in the past, and we've had design discussions about what is the right way to fix a particular issue. But for a someone with whom I've never interacted before, and all I get is a drive-by, empty Acked-by? No, it's not going to get included by me. Sorry. - Ted
On Tue, 21 May 2019, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:25:53AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > A Reviewed-by to me means that a person knows the area, including > > possible side-effects a patch may cause. In this EXTx case, I do not > > consider myself a domain expert and thus am not in a position to > > provide that level of review. Instead, the patch was reviewed on its > > own merits, and since it looked good (which it still does), an > > Acked-by was provided. > > So that kind of "review", where "I'm not an expert, but it looks good > to me", has very, very little value as far as I'm concerned. A > computer program can do a "it builds, ship it" test, and checkpatch > can find the whitespace nits. So what value does a "I can't consider > side-effects" review have? Again, as a maintainer, I can put very > little (read: zero) reliance on it. So what your asking is that only domain experts are to review patches in the subsystems you maintain. That's absurd, and among the least inclusive statements I've heard in a while. No wonder we have an issue attracting new reviewers/maintainers to the fray. > > Exactly, there's that *if* I was talking about. "IF, a patch affects > > multiple subsystems". This patch does not. The Acked by is also not > > coming from a maintainer from this subsystem, thus this statement does > > not come into play. > > And my assertion is that if a patch does not affect multiple > subsystems, an Acked-by has close to zero value. So why do it? In my At the moment, your assertion isn't based on the documented meaning. So you're enforcing rules based on what you think it should mean, rather than what it actually means (according to the current and up-to-date documentation). > opinion, we should tighten up the documentation to only use it for the > Maintainer reviewing a patch that's not flowing through the > Maintainer's tree. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But frankly that's all it is at the moment. If you wish to push this meaning onto others, you need to start a conversation and/or submit patches for review. > > > > "at all" - wow! What kind of message do you think this gives to first > > > > time contributors (like Philippe here), or would-be reviewers? That > > > > there isn't any point in attempting to review patches, since > > > > Maintainers are unlikely to take it into consideration "at all"? I > > > > know that when I come to review a patch, if *any* contributor has > > > > taken the time to review a patch, it always plays an important role. > > > > > > So if I'm going to have to do a full review (which you approve), that > > > by definition means I'm not relying on the review at all, right? > > > > Your review should not replace and over-ride another review (unless > > you disagree with it, obviously), it should compliment it. Both *-bys > > should be added to the patch when/if it is applied. > > We're using "reviewed" in two different ways. I'm talking about an > empty "reviewed-by" or "acked-by", for which if it's an developer > unknown to me, I have no way of telling how much time they spent on > the review. Was it 5 seconds? Or 5 minutes? Or something in > between? What is an empty {Acked,Reviewed}-by? We have no provision for indicating time taken to review. As maintainers we have to make the call on how many 'credits' to award the {Acked,Reviewed}-by based on our experiences of that person. I have reviewers I trust and reviewers who are new to me. My trust levels of a patch increase a given amount depending on who they are and how many I receive. That level is seldom zero though! > You're saying that if someone sends a "Reviewed-by" or "Acked-by", I > *must* never drop it, even if I have no idea how much value it has > (and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it has no value). Sorry, I'm > not going to play things that way. Feel free to call me bad if you > want, it's not going to change how I do things. Yes, that's bad. > Worse, what value does it add if we record it for all posterity? What > should someone who is reviewing the git log after the fact, perhaps a > year later, take from the fact that there is an unknowned Reviewed-By > or Acked-By attached to the commit? Do you think someone reviewing a > commit year later will spend time crawling over the git history to > determine how many reviews someone has done? Don't forget these reviewers you speak of, they are only "unknown" to you. They will have; friends, co-workers, employers, potential employers, community colleagues, etc. Their interest in a patch, driver or sub-system may not be known to you, but may be intrinsic to their role else where. Who are you (we) to decide who is unimportant when it comes to our areas of responsibility? Or who should and should not gain credit for their efforts? It's about given credit where credit is due. > (And if all maintainer's add empty Reviewed-by to their commit, > looking at Git histories might not tell you much anyway. It cheapens > the Reviewed-by and Acked-by headers. I consider part of the > maintianer's job to curate not just patches, but Reviewed-By and > Acked-by headers.) There is no such thing as an empty {Acked,Reviewed}-by - you made that up. Unless someone is gaming the Git statistics and giving out *-bys willy-nilly, it means they have put some effort into reviewing a patch. Cheapens the headers? Total nonsense! Any review, even by non-domain experts only serves to strengthen the likelihood that the patch is of the required quality. I'm sorry to say, but I find your views dated, elitist and arrogant. > And BTW, if the maintainer is using a non-rewinding git tree, and the > git has already been published on git.kernel.org, it's physically not > *possible* for them to add a late Reviewed-by, or Acked-by. And I > think that's perfectly justifiable, since if the decision has already > been made to accept the commit, the Reviewed-By or Acked-By has no > value to the project. Agreed. Late reviews are generally not credited. > > > So my personal approach is to not include Reviewed-by or > > > Acked-by if it didn't add any value to the project. > > > > That's wrong of you. I do not support this behaviour at all. If > > someone has gone to the trouble to review a patch and provide a > > suitable *-by, you, as the maintainer have a duty to credit this work > > by applying it to the patch (if accepted). > > But I don't *know* that someone has gone to the trouble to review a > patch. If they made any kind of comment (positive or negative, or > evaluating tradeoffs), then I have some kind of signal about how much > time they spent reviewing the patch, and how much comprehension they > have about the patch. This is why my metric is "value to the > subsystem / value to the project as a whole". No, you don't know. You can never know. That's why you have to give the benefit of the doubt in most cases. How much credit you actually give to the review is your decision as the maintainer - it should not be your decision to dismiss it completely based on your (our) ignorance of who this person might be. > You yourself have asked me to count the number of Reviewed-by you have > as a sign of your technical ability. Would you then want to make sure > that that signal isn't cheapened? Actually my SoBs would have been more important, but that's by the by. Granted, some (not all, not most, not even many) people write lots of trivial patches, submit reviews which have not been thought out properly, game Git statistics, etc. They should be dealt with in the appropriate manor. However until proven guilty, reviewers should be guided and encouraged to do continue doing so. These are our future maintainers and should be nurtured. You absolutely should not ignore their efforts. Doing so will only make them feel undervalued and will likely discourage them from further contributions. > > That policy is crazy. You are saying that people should only be > > providing negative reviews? So what happens if someone conducts a > > review and they cannot find anything wrong with the submission? You > > are suggesting that you are not going to apply their tag anyway, so > > what would be the point in them providing one? You are essentially > > saying that unless they have previously given a patch a NACK, then > > don't bother to provide an ACK. Bonkers! > > It's a question of developer history. Not just of a particular patch, > but their reviewer history as a whole. If Jan Kara or Andreas Dilger > or Lukas Czerner sends me a empty Reviewed-By, it has great weight, > because they've found issues with other patches in the past, and we've > had design discussions about what is the right way to fix a particular > issue. But for a someone with whom I've never interacted before, and > all I get is a drive-by, empty Acked-by? No, it's not going to get > included by me. Sorry. That's not a question of developer history. If you'd conducted your due diligence on me (just using this patch as an example), you would have seen that I have a solid 'developer history'. What you're judging on is your own opinion based on your experiences alone. As I said before, people shouldn't be ignored/discouraged based on our ignorance of their existence. Deciding not to apply a *-by because you have no way to gauge the level quality of the review, due solely to a gap in your own knowledge is an awful policy. This discussion is starting to take up a lot of my time now, so I'd like it to come to a close. I guess the summary is; if you wish to continue being; discouraging, exclusive and elitist, you continue doing things your way. If you wish other contributors to adhere to your meanings of the various *-by tags, you'll have to conduct a discussion and update the documentation accordingly. I'd certainly be happy to change the way I use them, but only if reflected clearly in the documentation. Have a lovely day Ted.
diff --git a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c index 968f163b5feb..678e99aeef1f 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/block_validity.c +++ b/fs/ext4/block_validity.c @@ -142,7 +142,8 @@ static int ext4_protect_reserved_inode(struct super_block *sb, u32 ino) struct inode *inode; struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb); struct ext4_map_blocks map; - u32 i = 0, err = 0, num, n; + int err = 0, n; + u32 i = 0, num; if ((ino < EXT4_ROOT_INO) || (ino > le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_inodes_count)))
Variables 'n' and 'err' are both used for less-than-zero error checking, however both are declared as unsigned. Ensure ext4_map_blocks() and add_system_zone() are able to have their return values propagated correctly by redefining them both as signed integers. ../fs/ext4/block_validity.c:158:9: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] if (n < 0) { ^ ../fs/ext4/block_validity.c:173:12: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] if (err < 0) ^ Signed-off-by: Philippe Mazenauer <philippe.mazenauer@outlook.de> --- fs/ext4/block_validity.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)