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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DA4E64016 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 18BCC6B0088; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 13BD86B0089; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:32:50 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 029C66B008C; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:32:49 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82D96B0088 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572FA415CE for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:32:49 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82811400000.06.FB88D84 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (lichtvoll.de [37.120.160.25]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5145FC0003 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of martin@lichtvoll.de designates 37.120.160.25 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=martin@lichtvoll.de; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1732224563; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=nTxmujkRbcQQLybegqMW4JBqTD/Q0z6LJ6utOZ/EpH8=; b=ksC9vowxE7xf1w21JnduhB1/goXx+iu662rv5vrIVGlN2SZGWwnvnsiqC520yNMGnb5DQS tbeFFsE7N3VF/th+GtZwqZgb8LhUs2LLuhfw2mQ6VJjkOpqvgliTDtVfwHO8fXlDdhdbL3 ujDVu2ccEZFisMbI7kconSVIPgl2itY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of martin@lichtvoll.de designates 37.120.160.25 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=martin@lichtvoll.de; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1732224563; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=mtKcgf9yAEJ9UnXIc/iyXjeqx4OZjSol3WUxTZG6qYflesd9kUFhYXEK8hs64boeUwDixd ofC32rSOofFMNfdTIhXT4PQ+VYkyxMTEWDCPh8PPQGEbzwMPAQY7V6yWPZ7aFmMccplxwI 2MNQsCCQTKKOPhN0EeB9lzkfFbeAuP4= Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFC898FC39; Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:32:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Martin Steigerwald To: Kent Overstreet , Theodore Ts'o Cc: Shuah Khan , Michal Hocko , Dave Chinner , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Yafang Shao , jack@suse.cz, Christian Brauner , Alexander Viro , Paul Moore , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "conduct@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:32:44 +0100 Message-ID: <7747240.EvYhyI6sBW@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: <20241120234759.GA3707860@mit.edu> References: <20241120234759.GA3707860@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5145FC0003 X-Stat-Signature: 7n7z5zm3rmxyimfenzquizqan71n3ttm X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1732224710-752646 X-HE-Meta: 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 M3qCCsmg NgSTDGJH7kzW0Zk3fBODUel80/kOf9bqUIE7E6m6CzDxcBM0rX/UgU2BgLMpSNix3vgzX5gNT50Fqq/sqg6VN4GaT8tBE4r+yejpqBCTro0yITPfKttpahnXb0SKDEnBCNup65ISRVfYRRqUqaH3FwzHJHa0+XwZ7K7WZTe2Czu0IZkAsY0vFcho2uUOJcyWCakv2+kZKSuAA9pDvpAU3l+9HMChGtXEKwwOAWlxu7yAYP4mCfI/wwKwG3FWHxolW8NmYPOAQfNQvO+Ph6JGXOYeHWA4WCzaV7WKoifIbOsEdnwijEtQah8oTDOOfCBGrSs85atvlDjcWWok= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Ted, hi everyone. Theodore Ts'o - 21.11.24, 00:47:59 MEZ: > If you look at the git history of the kernel sources, you will see > that a large number of your fellow maintainers assented to this > approach --- for example by providing their Acked-by in commit > 1279dbeed36f ("Code of Conduct Interpretation: Add document explaining > how the Code of Conduct is to be interpreted"). A large number of people agreeing on a process like this does not automatically make it an effective idea for resolving conflict. As I outlined in my other mail, this kind of forced public apology approach in my point of view is just serving to escalate matters. And actually it seems that exactly that just happened right now. See my other mail for suggestions on what I think might work better. A large number of people agreeing on anything does not automatically make it right. I'd suggest to avoid any kind of power-play like "we are more than you" in here. What would respectful communication would look like? What does happen if *everyone* involved considers how it might feel in the shoes of the other one? I have and claim no standing in kernel community. So take this for whatever it is worth for you. I won't be offended in case you disregard it. Also I do not need any reply. And again, just for clarity: I certainly do not condone of the tone Kent has used. Best, -- Martin