Re: git: a52b30ff98cd - main - sys_pipe: consistently use cr_ruidinfo for accounting of pipebuf
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:02:22 UTC
On 9/21/24 16:51, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 07:03:18PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >> Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> writes: >>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@FreeBSD.org> writes: >>>> Konstantin Belousov <kib@FreeBSD.org> writes: >>>>> commit a52b30ff98cdab82af140285fa7fcdf1036fef27 >>>>> >>>>> sys_pipe: consistently use cr_ruidinfo for accounting of pipebuf >>>>> >>>>> Tested by: yasu >>>>> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation >>>> > MFC after: 1 week >>>> This appears to be the opposite of the patch which you posted on >>>> -current and which yasu@ tested [...] >>> Before committing anything, I did a self-review and remembered that I >>> have did a lot of considerations when implementing swap accounting and >>> decided that ruid is the right target for charge. >>> >>> Besides stating the obvious fact above, what do you expect me to answer/ >>> react to your mail? >> >> My point is that the commit message claims the patch was tested by yasu@ >> when in fact it wasn't. If you're convinced that this is the correct >> solution then that's fine, and it does appear to work, but don't claim >> that it's been tested by others when it hasn't. > > The main part of the patch was to ensure consistency in updates: it must > be either always uidinfo, or always ruidinfo. Which one specifically > would affect the limit's semantic, but not the buggy behavior you reported. In similar situations with reviews I've sometimes added a "(earlier version)" suffix after the annotation, e.g.: Reviewed by: foo (earlier version) Using a similar annotation here might have been clearer. -- John Baldwin