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 <kostik...@gmail.com> writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@freebsd.org> writes:
Konstantin Belousov <k...@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
