On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 11:28 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:33:48AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2023-05-03 at 05:57 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 11:50:51AM +0200, Petr Tesařík wrote:

quoted

If anyone ever wants to use this code tagging framework for
something else, they will also have to convert relevant
functions to macros, slowly changing the kernel to a minefield
where local identifiers, struct, union and enum tags, field
names and labels must avoid name conflict with a tagged
function. For now, I have to remember that alloc_pages is
forbidden, but the list may grow.

Also, since you're not actually a kernel contributor yet...

You have an amazing talent for being wrong.  But even if you were
actually right about this, it would be an ad hominem personal
attack on a new contributor which crosses the line into
unacceptable behaviour on the list and runs counter to our code of
conduct.

...Err, what? That was intended _in no way_ as a personal attack.

Your reply went on to say "If you're going to comment, please do the
necessary work to make sure you're saying something that makes sense."
That is a personal attack belittling the person involved and holding
them up for general contempt on the mailing list.  This is exactly how
we should *not* treat newcomers.

If I was mistaken I do apologize, but lately I've run across quite a
lot of people offering review feedback to patches I post that turn
out to have 0 or 10 patches in the kernel, and - to be blunt - a
pattern of offering feedback in strong language with a presumption of
experience that takes a lot to respond to adequately on a technical
basis.

A synopsis of the feedback is that using macros to attach trace tags
pollutes the global function namespace of the kernel.  That's a valid
observation and merits a technical not a personal response.

James