From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Mon May 27 19:57:25 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB7C15A97FC; Mon, 27 May 2019 19:57:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 847C88358E; Mon, 27 May 2019 19:57:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 75BA61DFB9; Mon, 27 May 2019 19:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 19:57:25 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: rgrimes@freebsd.org Cc: Konstantin Belousov , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r232071 - head/sys/vm Message-ID: <20190527195725.GA80681@FreeBSD.org> References: <20190527112155.GZ2748@kib.kiev.ua> <201905271421.x4RELOfH011064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201905271421.x4RELOfH011064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 847C88358E X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.81 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.81)[-0.815,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Mon, 27 May 2019 19:57:26 -0000 On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 07:21:24AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > ... > We as a project look bad by not having this minimal set of code > reviews in place for things that are coming from a source that is > frought with introducing bad change. We do *not* look bad because none of those warnings and errors suggested by (any) static analysis tools were ever passed without all the due checks by either the original committer, the last committer who touched the files, or opening a PR in less straight-forward cases. I have several potential issues in my queue from the last run which I might submit for the further analysis (via email or PR), but for now since I've published the full log (very noisy), let's see if it gets any traction on its own. Some people had contacted me off-the-list and expressed their interest. I'll revisit it in a few weeks to see if nagging developers and opening PRs is still needed, or the bugs are being voluntarily squished by responsible (and having proper domain-knowledge) parties. ./danfe