Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH v2] staging: greybus: Convert uart.c from IDR to XArray
From: Dan Carpenter
Date: Mon Aug 16 2021 - 14:37:23 EST
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:10:04AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 8/16/21 10:06 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:46:08AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > > On 8/14/21 1:11 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > > Convert greybus/uart.c from IDR to XArray. The abstract data type XArray
> > > > > is more memory-efficient, parallelisable, and cache friendly. It takes
> > > > > advantage of RCU to perform lookups without locking. Furthermore, IDR is
> > > > > deprecated because XArray has a better (cleaner and more consistent) API.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't verified the use of the new API (yet) but I have a few
> > > > comments on your patch, below.
> > > >
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I'm right about this... But the actual change you're
> > > > making has nothing to do with what the Intel test robot reported.
> > > > I personally find the "Reported-by" here a little misleading, but
> > > > maybe the "Link" line that gets added will provide explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, unless someone else contradicts/corrects me, I'd rather
> > > > not have the "Reported-by" here (despite wanting to provide much
> > > > credit to <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>...).
> > >
> > > You are correct, "Reported-by:" does not make sense here.
> > There should be a Fixes-from: tag for bugs found in review (not style
> > issues) but when I suggest it then people just say to use the
> > Reported-by tag.
> I think things caught during review aren't normally worthy
> of specific mention in the commit message (though maybe in
> the non-committed part under "---"). I mean, that's what
> review is for. And in the case of what <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> does, that's effectively a technical aspect of "review."
I'm not talking about stuff like intending or naming schemes, I'm
talking about real bugs like missing error codes or NULL dereferences.
People do count tags so we might as well add them for worthwhile
> So I don't think "Fixes-from" (whatever that means) or
> "Reported-by" make sense for this type of update.
Earlier today I forwarded a kbuild Smatch warning where someone had
used "sizeof(0)" instead of "0" but because the patch was already
applied, that means I got Reported-by credit. If the kbuild-bot could
have reported the bug before the networking people applied it that's
more valuable but I get less credit. It's a perverse incentive.
Also I sort of don't like the Reviewed-by tag. I see a lot of people
adding Reviewed-by but I've never seen them point out a bug during the
review process so that seems pretty worthless. But Fixes-from means
that person knows what they're talking about.