From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Thu Nov 19 04:51:36 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BE147F0CC; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:51:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mjguzik@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Cc6hl6H9Vz3hks; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:51:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mjguzik@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id b6so5084777wrt.4; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 20:51:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ek+mp1wwqiO0LhiE01djxEyUAuiPJ5Wh4dvDrJOusPI=; b=PxLIKnLavVn/H/tQWIrwLEvWbI4vGi2jviOn5zSciA8D50RQl/kqThhvBL3hBMu7Vw ayRfQO/A9L8sBXojVPpeOOjOgJm2KrrocAHC+liS+UGvu021KSPvrNpyi95wCM3ADBMm q8B65mLneFTqFzIixYpJAk1Fpz7/dADQLk2RehdTMe73iq9cIrz9p+g4qGgmGtDAvscV IUrVXG7VBtFiQfS2XceZotzFI+Njb06eXRBRsd2JkcHW1w+jNtlEUgGZUfnxFjiABljG V3uh0Cnb1Iw+PoZ0xpLT9M78fdD0zQEa6PJ2WZITRUbWF3U4jZy76x+Gg8CHTQ2BUBSt DbnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ek+mp1wwqiO0LhiE01djxEyUAuiPJ5Wh4dvDrJOusPI=; b=tXaaCvYeI/DO+1tY9qednUeEL14Z/FaQ9ctKA44o7FbHs0fIElwD/xm32DhpBYLr+h 0nvBqLCg3f063fTzJxAeiEro9UKh4ovtmcQpeGZZVZ+nJNosDPcM6VejGWaNjxNHNR7R qh5v1wbphgDCCtLSL8qRNDbzJIiCMa5gRrL8tOfNA3IzGYk6Qs6OhvXbMOdrGK72R5+t GzxtiubnFegqyXzrt++sXvflEkKu37fhOQqlStGfY3nvhIsBmPpuH3jAtk9mtF0rayLE Fuz1AjVc+gwQ0AYRiVzE+D+9pxF/RH0N4qgWLg+CUsGjqwcDXZtgOWDtiJGLQB9p36in MXIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+5UFCa35kjHzXw/nQBFdsYzSC6tmwriovX0kZGrThQuzCgvG3 m69S19hWdha4Ob6F/rdSIkCzEsaqmLDkcLMjXEAHqM6rE4s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyArgCIHMADRb8H259QJski/VY4MzEyv9wvOe9LYplwq5DM0wdSsdzKfn2k3uO9UojpB57pysxb1JasgnpjrY4= X-Received: by 2002:adf:9b98:: with SMTP id d24mr7856501wrc.17.1605761493870; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 20:51:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:adf:dec7:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 20:51:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4f6f6b0a-e71c-a286-507e-abf2522c142c@FreeBSD.org> References: <202011141922.0AEJM2ld055995@repo.freebsd.org> <4f6f6b0a-e71c-a286-507e-abf2522c142c@FreeBSD.org> From: Mateusz Guzik Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 05:51:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r367695 - in head/sys: kern sys To: John Baldwin Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Cc6hl6H9Vz3hks X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 04:51:36 -0000 On 11/19/20, John Baldwin wrote: > On 11/18/20 2:16 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >> On 11/17/20, John Baldwin wrote: >>> On 11/14/20 11:22 AM, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >> Interested parties can check the consumer (also seen in the diff) to >> see this is for consistency. I don't think any comments are warranted >> in the header. > > I did read the consumer, and there didn't seem tremendous value in the > extra line there. > One thing to note is that there are more thing to batch than currently implemented, meaning the established pattern is going get more users. With everyone implementing the same routines, even if nops, it is pretty clear what's going on. In contrast if random calls are missing the reader is left wondering if there is a bug. Either way I see no reason to either comment add a comment in the header nor to remove the nop func. >>> These changes would benefit from review. >>> >> >> I don't think it's feasible to ask for review for everything lest it >> degardes to rubber stamping and I don't think this change warranted >> it, regardless of the cosmetic issues which can always show up. > > That is not consistent with the direction the project is moving. If you > check the commit logs of other high-volume committers such as markj@, > kib@, or myself, you will find that a substantial number of those commits > are reviewed (typically in phabricator) without preventing us from > making useful progress. Also, while the previous core did not mandate > reviews, we moved closer to it when the Pre-Commit Review chapter was > added to the Committer's Guide: > > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/pre-commit-review.html > > In the related thread on developers@ we indicated that while weren't yet > making pre-commit review mandatory, we collectively want to move in that > direction. > If you exclude bite-size commits, you will see I am getting reviews for thing which are outside of my work area or which include design choices. Past that other people keep committing without reviews anyway. That said, it may be this patch indeed should have been reviewed, but as it is I don't think this is the case. -- Mateusz Guzik