Re: [PATCH net] net: bcmasp: fix memory leak when bringing down if

[Justin Chen]

On 4/17/24 9:52 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 4/17/24 09:19, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:46:44PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > > > > When bringing down the TX rings we flush the rings but forget to
> > > > > > reclaimed the flushed packets. This lead to a memory leak since we
> > > > > > do not free the dma mapped buffers. …
> > > > >
> > > > > I find this change description improvable.
> > > > >
> > > > > * How do you think about to avoid typos?
> > > > >
> > > > > * Would another imperative wording be more desirable?
> > > >
> > > > The change description makes sense to me. Can you be a bit more 
> > > > specific as to what isn't clear here?
> > >
> > > Spelling suggestions:
> > > + … forget to reclaim …
> > > + … This leads to …
> >
> > Markus, let's cut to the chase.
> >
> > What portion of your responses of this thread were produced
> > by an LLM or similar technology?
> >
> > The suggestions in your second email are correct.
> > But, ironically, your first response appears to be grammatically 
> > incorrect.
> >
> > Specifically:
> >
> > * What does "improvable" mean in this context?
>
> I read it as "improbable", but this patch came out of an actual bug 
> report we had internally and code inspection revealed the leaks being 
> plugged by this patch.
>
> > * "How do you think about to avoid typos?"
> >    is, in my opinion, grammatically incorrect.
> >    And, FWIW, I see no typos.
>
> There was one, "This lead to a memory leak" -> "This leads to a memory 
> leak"
>
> > * "Would another imperative wording be more desirable?"
> >    is, in my opinion, also grammatically incorrect.
> >
> > And yet your comment is ostensibly about grammar.
> > I'm sorry, but this strikes me as absurd.
>
> Yeah, I share that too, if you are to nitpick on every single word 
> someone wrote in a commit message, your responses better be squeaky 
> clean such that Shakespeare himself would be proud of you.
>
> There is a track record of what people might consider bike shedding, 
> others might consider useless, and others might find uber pedantic 
> comments from Markus done under his other email address: 
> elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
>
> Me personally, I read his comments and apply my own judgement as to 
> whether they justify spinning a new patch just to address the feedback 
> given. He has not landed on my ignore filter, but of course that can 
> change at a moments notice.

I try my best to address feedback. After a bit of thought, I feel the 
feedback given was not out of good faith. I would like to keep the patch 
as-is unless someone else has feedback. That is if the maintainers are 
ok with that.

Thanks,
Justin

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature