Re: + x86-add-support-for-pud-sized-transparent-hugepages-checkpatch-fixes.patch added to -mm tree

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Mar 10 2016 - 04:38:08 EST



* Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:08:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I have no idea what it means. This is copy-and-change of the pmd version,
> > > which was originally commit db3eb96f4e6281b84dd33c8980dacc27f2efe177 by
> > > Andrea.
> >
> > It means that we don't want to copy-and-change a crappy comment that slipped
> > through 5 years ago, we want to copy-and-improve. I even suggested the comment
> > improvement (which needs to be checked though).
>
> The "it" in my sentence referred to the comment. I have no idea what
> the comment is supposed to mean. I am the worst person to figure out
> what the comment is supposed to mean as I have the least experience with
> the code here.
>
> The PUD and PMD code should be as similar as possible, down to the
> comments and the spacing. If you want the original fixed, that's fine,
> and I'm willing to include it as part of this patch set. But it's not
> my responsibility to fix up the comments that you don't like.
>
> > > It seems unfair to ask me to do better than what is there right now.
> >
> > It's absolutely fair for maintainers to require the improvement of existing code
> > you want to modify, especially when you are complicating existing code ...
>
> I'm not complicating it. I'm duplicating it.

I don't think your language lawyering is particularly constructive: you are adding
new functionality to existing x86 code, and as such you need to address review
feedback from x86 maintainers - even if it involves old code.

( There's an obvious maintainability threshold concern behind such requests from
maintainers: existing bad practices in old code accumulate, and the code can
bear only so much complexity, so there's a level over which we require cleanups
to existing code before we accept new changes. )

This is nothing new, this happens all the time, it's a routine review practice
when new patches are applied.

Anyway, until my concerns are addressed the x86 bits are NAK-ed:

NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,

Ingo