Re: Boot regression caused by kauditd

From: Cong Wang
Date: Tue May 02 2017 - 01:51:16 EST

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> In that case please send a proper inline patch to the audit mailing list
>>>> and we'll review it.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> Now that I'm back in front of a proper screen/keyboard I've been
>>> looking over your patch and while you are very right in that the
>>> current RCU usage is very wrong, there are quite a few things I would
>>> like to see changed in your patch ... I'm working on something right
>>> now, I'll post an RFC draft to the audit list and CC you once I get
>>> this sorted out, expect something in a few hours.
>>> Also, once you've had a look at this new patch, and assuming you are
>>> okay with it, I'd like to add your sign-off to it. This may not be
>>> your patch exactly, but a significant portion of it is borrowed from
>>> your patch yesterday.
>> So your review process is: if people's V1 patch is not perfect, you
>> will rewrite it by yourself?
> As I mentioned earlier I didn't get a chance to properly review your
> patch yesterday for two important reasons: 1) it hit my inbox at the
> end of my day and I simply didn't have time and 2) you sent it as an
> attachment which makes it hard to review and provide feedback. I took
> a closer look at your patch this morning and noticed a number of
> things that needed additional work as well as some merge/porting
> things; considering I never saw a response from you on my last email
> asking for an inline patch submission and taking into account where we
> are in the merge window (I'd like to submit this fix during the v4.12
> merge window) I went ahead and put together a patch based on your
> prototype.
> You'll see I just posted it and CC'd you (our emails probably crossed
> paths), asking if it was okay to add your sign-off and give you
> credit. I'm only trying to speed up the process. There is no malice
> here, I actually thought I was helping you out ... I suppose the old
> adage rings true: no good deed goes unpunished ;)

Sure, it is of course faster since you are the maintainer, but this is
not how we work as a whole community. I am sure it could be very
offensive if you just rewrite other new people's patch only to speed

Speed is one thing, collaboration is another, for the long term the
latter is much more important than the former for kernel community.