[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v8.1 1/2] target/s390x: support SHA-512 extensions

From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8.1 1/2] target/s390x: support SHA-512 extensions
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 12:47:08 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0

3) I won't follow up with additional cleanup patches because I already
spent more time on this than I originally planned.

What is this B.S.?
I spent months on this code and had to poke you a
bunch to review it. You spend one afternoon with it and you're already
burnt out, apparently. Sorry to hear that. But also, something is amiss

There is a big difference between "burnt out" and "having to prioritize". No need to feel sorry.

You must be fortunate if "one afternoon" is not a significant time investment. For me it is a significant investment.

when the volunteer completely outside his realm of expertise has a
greater commitment than the professional maintainer. Regardless, seeing > that 
kind of thing here doesn't make me enthusiastic about contributing
to s390 stuff in the future, in the sense that hearing "I won't work
more on this" from a maintainer is a contagious sentiment; leaders are

Let's recap:

1. This is very complicated code and a complicated instruction to
   emulate. It's not easy to review. It's not easy code to write for
   someone new to s390x / TCG -- especially to get memory
   accesses right and work around the lack of memory transactions.

2. We provided early feedback fast, but I expressed that there are
   certain things that need improvements and that might be coded in a
   way that make it easier to understand/review. I had to play myself
   with that code to figure out what it even does and how we can improve
   it. As I was overloaded lately (including vacation, conferences),
   that time was not hard to find because other projects were of higher
   priority on my end.

3. You really pushed me hard offline to look into it. I did it
   ASAP because it fell through the cracks and I expressed that I am
   sorry. I proposed to get it ready for upstream and you agreed. Thomas
   was aware of that communication.

I sent out something ASAP to get your stuff finally merged. I really tried my best yesterday. Apparently I failed.

In an ideal world I would have *never* sent out that code. I would have provided review feedback and guidance to make that code easier to grasp and sort out the remaining issues. I thought we (Thomas included) had an agreement that that's the way we are going to do it. Apparently I was wrong.

Most probably I lived in the kernel space too long such that we don't rush something upstream. For that reason *I* sent out a patch with fixups included instead of requesting more changes after you clearly expressed that you don't want to wait any longer.

Here I am, getting told by Thomas that we now do it differently now. What I really tried to express here is: if Thomas wants to commit things differently now, maybe he can just separate the cleanup parts. I really *don't want* to send out a multi-patch series to cleanup individual parts -- that takes significantly more time. Especially not if something is not committed yet.

Yes, such upstream experiences are discouraging to new contributors. But such upstream experiences discourage maintainer like me as well. This morning I honestly asked myself if I should still be listed as a maintainer under s390x/tcg.

Not sure if s390x/tcg would be better without me, but then I get to disappoint less people.

The 2/2 patch doesn't even apply on top of your "v8.1 1/2", so your
submission isn't even easily apply-able.

Sorry, but that's a piece of cake for Thomas. And he could always request a complete resend from me anytime.


David / dhildenb

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]